You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Any party that can fix the housing crisis is likely to win a lot of elections…
Nope, young house buyers don't vote, old crumblies losing their stored wealth will...for the other party.
Nope, young house buyers don’t vote, old crumblies losing their stored wealth will…for the other party.
Folk are more likely to vote as they get older but its still at 55% for those <35, and interestingly they actually increased in the 2019 election compared to older cohorts.
As for estate agents valuing things high to get a bigger commission. Nah. The difference in commission for a 10k price rise isn’t much. They would in most cases rather complete a quick sale. Not forgetting they do operate for the seller. A good estate agent is worth their weight ime.
It is pretty nuts round here. Our place has gone up by 25% in 7 years, but that is driven by people moving out of Leeds and London over the last 2 years, and being prepared to commute (the walk and train takes about 25 mins to get into central Leeds). 3 houses have sold signs on our street. That said, the madness must be slowing as a lot of stuff on Rightmove shows as reduced.
That said, my mate can’t sell his canal side property 5 miles away for love nor money.
The house next to us was advertised and sold apparently for $1.35 Million. Then the For Sale sign went up again and it's now on at $1.25 Million. If the original sale that seems to have fallen through was at the advertised price, a revised pricing drop of $100K is an awful lot of money.
Very similar too Ashat, new develpment in Cas just outside Leeds, very good for commuting, Houses sell pretty quick for decent money, and all tend to be sold by 1 estate agency.1 of the agents lives on the estate must be making a killing on commisions
The house next to us was advertised and sold apparently for $1.35 Million. Then the For Sale sign went up again and it’s now on at $1.25 Million. If the original sale that seems to have fallen through was at the advertised price, a revised pricing drop of $100K is an awful lot of money.
I typed this with the price in UK Pounds ££££ not US Dollars $$$$
Any party that can fix the housing crisis is likely to win a lot of elections…
By 'fix the housing crisis' do you mean reducing property values to levels more attainable levels? If so, the problem for any political party adopting such a policy, is you risk alienating the very swing voters you need to win an election. The home-owning 'working-class' and 'middle-class' voters, who having taken on large mortgages to get on the housing ladder, will not appreciate any party that saddles them with large negative equity values on their home. These are the very people who determine the outcome of and election, not the poor, who will always vote Labour, or the wealthy, who will always vote Conservative.
These are the very people who determine the outcome of and election, not the poor, who will always vote Labour, or the wealthy, who will always vote Conservative.
The now blue, once red, wall begs to differ.....
The house next to us was advertised and sold apparently for $1.35 Million. Then the For Sale sign went up again and it’s now on at $1.25 Million. If the original sale that seems to have fallen through was at the advertised price, a revised pricing drop of $100K is an awful lot of money.
It's 7.5%, so probably about right given the current market conditions. (And it may have been over-valued in the first place).
It seems to me that it's been 2, 3 or maybe more decades of numerous failures that have driven the country to this insane point where houses cost ridiculous amounts, yet fixing it won't feel in the best interests of a large percentage of the population.
Without commenting on what the solutions/ actions needed are, just looking at the timescales for fixing it is scary. A reset big enough to sort the problem quickly would probably be disastrous for the economy in lots of ways. A slower come down would need 2 or 3 decades of house price stagnation while wages increase and currently getting steady growth and wage increases is incredibly difficult. It feels like we are stuffed. I've concluded my kids won't own their own home until my wife and I pop it, if ever.
johndoh<br />The house next to us was advertised and sold apparently for $1.35 Million. Then the For Sale sign went up again and it’s now on at $1.25 Million. If the original sale that seems to have fallen through was at the advertised price, a revised pricing drop of $100K is an awful lot of money.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />It’s 7.5%, so probably about right given the current market conditions. (And it may have been over-valued in the first place).
I guess that's right. As to the original valuation.... well, £1.35M was a lot more than we had thought it might fetch. Got us thinking about our own.
, not the poor, who will always vote Labour, or the wealthy, who will always vote Conservative.
Write one statement to show you've not a clue about UK voting demographics...
It seems to me that it’s been 2, 3 or maybe more decades of numerous failures that have driven the country to this insane point where houses cost ridiculous amounts
Someone earlier linked the BBC two part documentary on this. It's worth watching because it does really lay out how multiple governments, both Conservative and Labour, led to this ruinous situation despite basically each successive prime minister promising to fix it.
There are no shortcuts except for building lots of houses. And preferably not crap ones driven only by the profit margins of the big four housebuilders (see also, the new build thread).
By ‘fix the housing crisis’ do you mean reducing property values to levels more attainable levels? If so, the problem for any political party adopting such a policy, is you risk alienating the very swing voters you need to win an election. The home-owning ‘working-class’ and ‘middle-class’ voters, who having taken on large mortgages to get on the housing ladder, will not appreciate any party that saddles them with large negative equity values on their home. These are the very people who determine the outcome of and election, not the poor, who will always vote Labour, or the wealthy, who will always vote Conservative.
I've always said the "fix" would involve a period of higher inflation of goods and wages while house prices stagnate. Even if house prices don't fall, inflation running in the 5-10% range for a couple of years now is making housing more affordable as long as.
a) your wage keeps up with inflation (wage inflation currently ~7.8%)
b) you're not at the very poor end where inflation on essentials is higher than the overall rate.
The only fly in the ointment is you've got to keep prices stable by getting the housebuilding going before inflation comes back down/interest rates drop and we go back to the previous problem of it being a bidding war of who'll take out the biggest mortgage.
The problem is people are idiots, a stagnant house price benefits you* even if you already own a house. As the gap to your next step up isn't growing.
*the majority who aren't looking to downsize, and TBH if you're downsizing you've probably ridden the wave of house prices spiraling upwards for 30 years.
What will happen when there's no-where else left to build those new houses, the rivers flow only with sewage or storm floods and the climate has changed, leading to sea level rises beyond manageable?? Imagine a world where there are no trees left to make your bog roll from. We already have too many people (rich 'westerners') on the planet but all of our politicians seem only interested in boosting growth. We cannot grow for ever and a substantial revision of human growth is required before nature does it the hard way..
From that perspective and in a way, we could do with stopping new housebuilding altogether, only build to replace what's here. Just build better every time. Use the space and resources better.
Now that I've made such a seriously controversial contribution, I'd better retire to a bomb shelter before I get flamed... Just as well I built it up on a hill.
Yeah it is crazy at the minute. There is one for sale near me which went up almost a year ago at £350k and it's still on the market, 4 bed, small garden, not looked after, would need new bathrooms and kitchen, driveway barely visible due to weeds etc. As of last week they've reduced it to £300k after quite a few big hitters went on sale and sold within days in the area with better locations, bigger and more bedrooms and more land for £325-360k.
The thing with this one thats been on the market for a year though, it was expensive when it was listed as there has been a few houses sold on the same street that are much much nicer since it went up, for between £250-260k. I'm really not sure why they're holding out.
It seems atleast in my area reasonably priced ones are changing hands within days but the long standing stragglers are refusing to lower their prices to the average, which is still expensive!! Talking some tiny 3 beds are going for £230-£240 if they have a slight smattering of a seaview or are within 5 minutes of a school. I live in a large village with 4 schools, one secondary, 1 christian primary, 1 catholic primary and one non-religiously affiliated primary so it's literally like a lottery.
Our only hope is one a few doors down from us which was a right state when it was sold, has a smaller garden, no conservatory, less parking etc went for 20k more than what we paid for ours in 2019 so hoping we've got some good positive equity.
cookeaa – you’re right in saying that a rebalancing is long overdue.
It won’t happen.
If there’s a market crash, those with money will pile in so a subsequent recovery will benefit those who least deserve it.
Political parties make lots of noise but will not take any action to lead a rebalancing of the market as downside in the form of possibly losing their seats is too much of a risk for them.
Planning reforms won’t do much if/when they are implemented.
Starmer’s rhetoric about house building will come to (almost) nothing.
You say…something has to give; I agree but what?
Honestly I don't know, my crystal ball isn't that good TBH.
As noted already mortgage hikes have already affected house owners (our own outgoings have taken a significant increase), and landlords are naturally passing on their own mortgage increases to renters.
I fear more properties will fall into the hands of big companies and investment funds as smaller private landlords just look to cash out rather than ride the interest rate/valuation rollercoaster, and we'll see price increases carrying on artificially rising beyond most people's incomes.
What should happen (IMO) is that formerly social housing stock is returned to the public ownership (basically an expensive buyback, two generations after the original event) and we start to build social housing again with covenants/legislation in place to prevent another Thatcherite sell off. But I have to wonder who's got the stomach for that policy given the prevailing "cupboards are bare" public finance narrative.
What is likely to give first? My guess Probably a proper housing and homelessness crisis I reckon, we'll end up in a situation where houses sit unoccupied accruing 'value' for the fund that owns them while people end up living in overcrowded rental slums, moving back in with parents or simply slipping into homelessness. It can and will happen, the only real way to head it off is for a few of us to swallow a bit of negative equity, but capitalism really doesn't like that sort of thing...
I expect it to be the big issue when SKS is going for his second term, spiking homelessness and out of control housing costs primarily caused by Tory policies (and helped by Labour intransigence) over a 50 year period will lead to some utterly cockeyed debates and wild DM/Sun articles I reckon... Strap in folks!
We already have too many people (rich ‘westerners’) on the planet but all of our politicians seem only interested in boosting growth.
Birth rates are falling all over the world, with the sharpest decline being in "western" states.
That doesn't change the fact that we've got housing policy very wrong for a very long time in the UK, especially from the point of view of younger generations.
in a way, we could do with stopping new housebuilding altogether, only build to replace what’s here.
In a way, yes. Although a lot of people would like their children to one day move out and get a place of their own, and by restricting supply that will get even more increasingly expensive and difficult.
Just build better every time. Use the space and resources better.
ive seen that movie wasnt it set in 2099
What is likely to give first? My guess Probably a proper housing and homelessness crisis I reckon, we’ll end up in a situation where houses sit unoccupied accruing ‘value’ for the fund that owns them while people end up living in overcrowded rental slums, moving back in with parents or simply slipping into homelessness. It can and will happen
Um....this IS happening. For many, it's already happened. I certainly wouldn't fancy being an average 20-year-old with no major inheritance or bank of mum and dad to lean on. Surprised they aren't already rioting, to be honest.
Um….this IS happening. For many, it’s already happened. I certainly wouldn’t fancy being an average 20-year-old with no major inheritance or bank of mum and dad to lean on. Surprised they aren’t already rioting, to be honest.
Yep. Friends in Bristol, landlord sold up. Two adults (late 40s), one kid, one average income (other adult couldn't work due to health issues). Budget £1200/month, for any 2 bed place, anywhere. Bidding on everything that came up, only for it to go to some young dual-income couple offering 10% or even 20% over the asking price. Eventually ended up 15 miles out of the city, with a long commute.
ReluctantJumper had a similar story in his thread. It's insane.
That said, my mate can’t sell his canal side property 5 miles away for love nor money.
It's too expensive.
Birth rates are falling all over the world, with the sharpest decline being in “western” states.
That's true, but people in rich countries use dozens or hundreds of times the carbon dioxide etc of people in poor countries.
the poor, who will always vote Labour, or the wealthy, who will always vote Conservative.
https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/volatility-realignment-electoral-shocks/
If it's your house you are entitled to ask for it what you want .
Just because you can't find anything that doesn't suit your budget isn't the fault of the seller
It's nothing new it's been mental for years
Take some photos of your property now as if you were selling then let us know what you want for it and I guarantee you'll be contradicting yourself
It’s too expensive.
I know exactly what sort of response you're going to get from that comment, but it's demonstrably true. When selling anything, it's only worth what someone else is prepared to pay for it. Unless you're in a position to wait, of course.
If the mate put it on the market for fifty quid it'd sell six times over before the ink was dry on the sign. Of course he can sell it, just not for what he wants for it.
That said, my mate can’t sell his canal side property 5 miles away for love nor money.
It’s too expensive.
Or prone to flooding/ unmortgagable
Or prone to flooding/ unmortgagable
Then it needs to be cheaper to reflect the fact that only cash buyers might be interested, or the risk of total loss.
Or prone to flooding/ unmortgagable
Even then it'll sell for the right price. The only things that absolutely stop sales are unavoidable ongoing costs such as service charges/maintenance charges that that are more than any potential rental income or make it cheaper to just live elsewhere.
Anything will sell at the right price.
Obviously anything will sell at a low enough price but that's not necessarily the "right" price, seems to me anyone with any sense is waiting until prices bottom out, so people just not buying at the moment.
Estate agents know I'd accept offers but it would be daft to drop the listed price too much when there is already a potential buyer on the hook. As executor & with charities being major benefactors I'm legally responsible to get market value for the place.
Um….this IS happening. For many, it’s already happened. I certainly wouldn’t fancy being an average 20-year-old with no major inheritance or bank of mum and dad to lean on. Surprised they aren’t already rioting, to be honest.
Yep, it's going to happen more while people squabble about what 'market value' actually is and miss the point.
Cities and towns are only really 'desirable' when people can actually afford to live in them, price the young and then the middle-aged out of both owning and renting in a given location and you inevitably invite in the disgustingly wealthy and the financial sector to try and profit off of a basic human need for housing. That's where we're at.
It's a brave new age for bastards.
My brother in law tried to buy a very old 1800's barn.
Rot in some of the timber and no mortgage lender would touch it.
So it's a cash buyer only, for a £700,000 barn, that has rot.
I suspect the price went down quite quickly!
OP back. Sorry to keep banging on. We've just come across an absolute scam on recent developments, this "Maintenance of shared green spaces" malarkey. Developers haven't passed on adoption of the estate grassy bits/verges/kids parks etc to local authorities, so the developers hand the maintenance responsibilities over to a "Company", who typically charge every household @ £150 per annum. Thing is, this charge isn't capped, so in the future they can charge what the hell they like. Refuse to pay?? They can ultimately repossess your house! I see the term applied to it is Fleecehold; a cross between leasehold and freehold, but which is basically a thinly disguised leasehold arrangement with no cap or limitations. I gather this is about to blow up as the latest scam. Or have I been asleep for the last 10yrs?
Yeah, that means you're basically paying top dollar for a new build, but it's basicaly a lease hold on the ground it's built on, and they (the people who actually own the land) can ramp up the ground rent as they see fit.
So you're not really buying a house in the traditional sense, your just buying a building on someone elses land and don't really have any rights.
It's a massive con.
ONLY EVER buy freehold unless its a flat, that way you own the building, and the land on which it is built upon.
Even then it’ll sell for the right price
Eventually it gets to a point where the owner can't then move onto their next property so decides to stay put.
@mattyfez. Thing is, the house is sold as freehold, but the "maintenance company" have in effect a charge on the land. It's a bloody disgrace of a loophole which the developers; looking at you Persimmon/Taylor Wimpey/Gleeson/Story/Charles Church etc try to hide from prospective buyers. The sales people just try to dismiss it as "oh every developer does it now, it's normal and will never go up in price". Oh yeah? Show me!
“oh every developer does it now, it’s normal and will never go up in price”. Oh yeah? Show me!
yeah, **** that, I wouldn't even entertain it, built in, unknown future liability...I don't know how that is even legal, contractually speaking.
Has it ever been tested in court? I mean, in this specific scenario, you can sign whatever contract you like as a layman, but if the terms are unfair, then it won't stand up in court, or at least it shouldn't.
If it's an american style gated community and someone has to employ a 'security guard' to walk the perimiter and vet every one who comes and goes.. and Tazer any illegals..
...ensure the communal swimming pool is looked after, adust the chrorine level etc, I could maybe understand a community fee.
But that's not realy a thing in the UK ...yet
Nor should it be. I can bring my lawn tractor/trailer/roller/ hedge cutters from my gaff and do it myself...and take pride in it. I've seen two sites in Carlisle where the new owners have paid the yearly fee and there hasn't even been any green spaces finished yet for them to maintain! I just can't believe that this is being accepted by buyers' solicitors. It's crackers.
I just can’t believe that this is being accepted by buyers’ solicitors.
I wouldn’t place any faith in your average conveyancer giving a toss. The standard of many is abysmal. Check everything yourself.
We’ve just come across an absolute scam on recent developments
The initial sale of my house fell through after the buyer discovered it was leasehold. Despite the fact that the last time payment for the lease was claimed, it was for the entire block and it was something like one pound, six shillings and fourpence.
faith in your average conveyancer giving a toss. The standard of many is abysmal
Many folk get mugged by the "free" onsite conveyancer.....
The initial sale of my house fell through after the buyer discovered it was leasehold
I remember looking at some houses in a northern town and thinking "bugger its leasehold" having lived in the south where outside of london it didnt really happen outside of flats before checking and seeing it was 800 years left at a maximum of the greater of one quid or two peppercorns a year.
Sadly though the big building companies decided to dust off the idea of leasehold seeing a way to boost their profits even higher.
Which kinda getting back on topic. The only way we are going to fix the market is to break it. The current fiction of just remove those tedious regulations will fail since there is clearly no incentive for the companies to actually use it to lower prices but just use the reduced regulations to boost profits.
Persimmons profit margin per house really is impressive. Why are they going to lower it if we lower the regulations for them?
I think "affordable housing" around here is £350k. Which is a bit mad.
Flats are a bit different, you can get indemity insurance against that, and you might have to pay a fiver a year to (someone?) I was more talking about new build lease holds where you never realy own the ground, and have no come back.
Lease hold will put a lot of buyers off unless it's a thousand year lease for a fiver etc.
I have indemnity insurance, it was a one off £50 cost at point of purchase.
Yeah, that means you’re basically paying top dollar for a new build, but it’s basicaly a lease hold on the ground it’s built on, and they (the people who actually own the land) can ramp up the ground rent as they see fit.
So you’re not really buying a house in the traditional sense, your just buying a building on someone elses land and don’t really have any rights.
None of this is correct. It's not a scam, it's not new, and it's not not freehold. We have just such an arrangement on our ~70 year old house, and it works fine.
The difficulty in controlling costs is a legitimate worry. Either it's a private estate or the council pays for it. If the council pays for it, then it'll have to bw done to council spec that they can afford to maintain. If the council won't adopt it, who should pay for maintenance until the end of time? The development company that has ceased to exist or the people who benefit from it?
I think the definition is affordable housing is 80% of the market rate.
I seem to remember this was one of Johnsons genius ideas when he was London mayor 🤔
If the council pays for it, then it’ll have to bw done to council spec that they can afford to maintain. If the council won’t adopt it, who should pay for maintenance until the end of time?
Perhaps if the development company built it to council specs so it would be adopted instead of cutting corners then passing the ongoing costs onto the owners.
Ive seen it play out over time ad it's not cool. It's all good until the developments finished -developer generally does it at that point to keep it looking good for perspective buyers.
Then the costs start to rise and the service goes down once he sells it on to the highest bidder to sit back and collect + raise at the contract % each year.
Resurrecting this, sorry. Well it looks like sellers do seem to be getting more realistic. Lots of stuff is being reduced now; not sure whether this is to tempt sales during the seasonal downturn or (hopefully not) interest rate hikes starting to bite. 2 probate properties I've kept an eye on have come down from the 250k mark to nearer 200k, they've been up since spring this year. Sellers getting real? I hope so.
We put our house on the market about a month ago. We don't need to sell but we saw a place we'd like to move to so have come to market to see if we can make it work. It is deathly quiet. Personally I think the government should have let the market correct in 2008 so I have absolutely no problem with a correction now (or a crash even).
We came to market at a reasonable price (I asked the agent specifically not to overprice) and had about 2 viewings in 2 weeks. We then took 10% off and got one more viewing! I'd say we are at about 2018 price level, so pre-COVID froth but still high in my opinion. We are probably 15% below comparable houses in our area.
The problem we now have is that, while I'd happily go to 50% of our original asking price (particularly if that was passed all the way down the chain so a first time buyer could benefit), nobody else out there seems ready to accept that prices will probably continue to drop. If our prospective purchase won't be realistic and drop their price there is little point us going even lower and disappointing a buyer. It's a waiting game now I think.
So to your point OP, I think some sellers are getting real but not much will change until more accept the reality of the situation.