Latest figures show that repossessions have dropped in every region of the UK with falls in the past year ranging from 10 to 39 per cent.
But behind the good news there is a large north-south divide with repossessions volumes, even after the recent falls, far greater in northern England than in the south.
The Land Registry's figures are based on data from the month of October 2013, contrasted with the same month a year earlier:
| October 2012 | October 2013 | Difference | |
| East Anglia | 133 | 98 | -26% |
| East Midlands | 93 | 153 | -39% |
| London | 148 | 102 | -31% |
| North East | 36 | 40 | -10% |
| North West | 367 | 252 | -31% |
| South East | 202 | 131 | -35% |
| South West | 98 | 60 | -39% |
| Wales | 114 | 105 | -8% |
| West Midlands | 130 | 87 | -33% |
| Yorkshire & Humberside | 251 | 165 | -34% |
| ALL UK | 1,636 | 1,129 | -31% |
Meanwhile the Charlbury Group, which runs the Arrears Management System used by mortgage lenders, has produced data on how long it takes to sell repossessed homes.
Repos in the South East sell the fastest, taking an average 125 days; the slowest is across northern England with an average of 156 days.
.png)
Comments
"But behind the good news there is a large north-south divide with repossessions volumes, even after the recent falls, far greater in northern England than in the south."
REALLY Wonder where the border is that this journo refers to. Let's pretend for the purposes of devilment (but clearly IS the case...) that it is "ANYWHERE that doesn't have 'South' or 'London' in its' name".
That being the case, you have
THE SOUTH - 293 repos in 2013
THE NORTH - 731 repos in 2013
WALES - 105 in 2013 (already excluded - TWICE - from 'the UK' by the 'journalist' who wrote this piece - and has also managed to write an entire article entitled "...across uk..." without a single mention of SCOTLAND OR NORTHERN IRELAND, and can't even capitalise our nation when typing it...).
BAD show all round, I suggest.
EAT - your readers deserve FAR, FAR BETTER than this plateful of cr@p you are serving them up.
"Am I reading this wrongly"
Hmmm... when does a 'negative' become a 'positive, or vice-versa'
You are absolutely correct, Mr Day - an INCREASE in numbers year-on-year should be displayed in percentage terms as '+x%'. Those figures quoted for the two regions you highlight are therefore incorrect by the +/- differential.
So why the false negative Simple, really - EAT have $crwd up AGAIN with more fluffy, inaccurate 'journalism'. Or inability to cut'n'paste, more like - as the figures for East Midlands and North East are the wrong way round, according to the actual Land Registry report:
http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/media/all-releases/press-releases/2014/market-trend-data-december-2013
Oh, dear. No-one heard of proof-reading
Wouldn't have happened under Ms. Renshaw's watchful eye - or would have at least been amended within the FIVE HOURS that have elapsed since your post...
Here's another one - The first paragraph states "...with falls in the past year ranging from 10 to 39 per cent." Either that is incorrect - or maybe Wales simply doesn't count as being in the UK.
An EAT journos' strong point may well not be Geography.
Nor, clearly, are spelling; grammar, or composition for that matter, from what I have witnessed over the last month or so.
Am I reading this wrongly
The article says all regions have seen repossession numbers fall and shows negative %'s as a result. However, in the East Midlands and North East the numbers have increased and should show a positive % figure. These cannot be correct.
I would also have thought that, given the nature of the stats, a fall should show a positive % and an increase a negative one.