Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • ST1991
    • By ST1991 13th Mar 17, 10:29 AM
    • 396Posts
    • 218Thanks
    ST1991
    Value of an old house
    • #1
    • 13th Mar 17, 10:29 AM
    Value of an old house 13th Mar 17 at 10:29 AM
    I am intrigued...
    When we bought the house the paperwork completed by the owner and our mortgage valuation both came back with an age of 1900 approx.

    A few weeks ago the previous owner popped over with the old (ancient) deeds to the house. By now we've owned the house for a few months. I have a quick scan and some of them go back to 1820's...

    I spoke with the neighbour yesterday over the garden fence and she told me the houses are actually 1700's, and the end of terrace has a sign on her door with the number and age (confirming mid-1700's)

    Now, whilst i love the house, i feel we have been mis-led a little. There is a lot of work to be done in the house regarding damp - but i am now worried that there is ALOT more work than we thought.

    Question is: When we come to sell it in the future will the age affect the price? Is there some magic rule that it is now automatically worth more or less, considering it is 300 years old...?!
Page 1
    • BJV
    • By BJV 13th Mar 17, 10:32 AM
    • 2,233 Posts
    • 3,352 Thanks
    BJV
    • #2
    • 13th Mar 17, 10:32 AM
    • #2
    • 13th Mar 17, 10:32 AM
    For me no, I would love the idea of buying an older house. I have had old and new and much prefer the old build. The house I currently have is 1900 ???? ish ??? Victorian and I love it. I take it you had a full structural report prior to purchase which would of highlighted any issues?
    Happiness, Health and Wealth in that order please!
    • davidmcn
    • By davidmcn 13th Mar 17, 10:38 AM
    • 5,602 Posts
    • 5,381 Thanks
    davidmcn
    • #3
    • 13th Mar 17, 10:38 AM
    • #3
    • 13th Mar 17, 10:38 AM
    When we come to sell it in the future will the age affect the price? Is there some magic rule that it is now automatically worth more or less, considering it is 300 years old...?!
    Originally posted by ST1991
    No, what matters is the actual condition of the house. I doubt the age makes a difference - may even add some historic value.
    • G_M
    • By G_M 13th Mar 17, 10:38 AM
    • 40,528 Posts
    • 46,369 Thanks
    G_M
    • #4
    • 13th Mar 17, 10:38 AM
    • #4
    • 13th Mar 17, 10:38 AM
    The age of the property bears no relation to the amount of work needed. Particularly when the difference is between 100 or 200 years (rather than 10 years and 100 years).

    A well maintained 500 year house may need no work at all. A poorly maintained 100 year house may need huge works. And there is a sliding scale in between.

    To identify how much work is needed to a property, you get a survey done, you do not rely on its age.

    Though its age may give the surveyor some clues about what kind of maintenance is required eg if there is subsidence needing repair, the depth of the existing foundations can be guessed from the age of theproperty.

    So - what did your survey say?

    Putting the state of repair aside for a moment, I would expect a house built in 1700 to be more valuable than a comparable property built in 1900.
    Last edited by G_M; 13-03-2017 at 10:43 AM.
    • Mojisola
    • By Mojisola 13th Mar 17, 10:42 AM
    • 27,977 Posts
    • 71,129 Thanks
    Mojisola
    • #5
    • 13th Mar 17, 10:42 AM
    • #5
    • 13th Mar 17, 10:42 AM
    I spoke with the neighbour yesterday over the garden fence and she told me the houses are actually 1700's, and the end of terrace has a sign on her door with the number and age (confirming mid-1700's)
    Originally posted by ST1991
    Didn't you notice this when you looked around the house and the local area?
    • JP08
    • By JP08 13th Mar 17, 10:43 AM
    • 830 Posts
    • 893 Thanks
    JP08
    • #6
    • 13th Mar 17, 10:43 AM
    • #6
    • 13th Mar 17, 10:43 AM
    Didn't you notice this when you looked around the house and the local area?
    Originally posted by Mojisola
    To be fair to the OP, neither his surveyor or vendor saw it either ...
    • davidmcn
    • By davidmcn 13th Mar 17, 10:52 AM
    • 5,602 Posts
    • 5,381 Thanks
    davidmcn
    • #7
    • 13th Mar 17, 10:52 AM
    • #7
    • 13th Mar 17, 10:52 AM
    Also, title deeds are to do with ownership of the land - not necessarily evidence of the age of the building currently on the land. Though you'd expect a terrace to be all of similar age!
    • G_M
    • By G_M 13th Mar 17, 10:56 AM
    • 40,528 Posts
    • 46,369 Thanks
    G_M
    • #8
    • 13th Mar 17, 10:56 AM
    • #8
    • 13th Mar 17, 10:56 AM
    And if the footprint of the property on the land is the same on all deed plans that might suggest the same property has been there all along.

    With old properties, it is usual for some detective work to be needed to determine both its age and history.
    • TBagpuss
    • By TBagpuss 13th Mar 17, 11:20 AM
    • 5,776 Posts
    • 7,547 Thanks
    TBagpuss
    • #9
    • 13th Mar 17, 11:20 AM
    • #9
    • 13th Mar 17, 11:20 AM
    The survey should have identified the condition ofthe house. THe age isn't necessarily a major factor in that. Did you have a full survey, or just the mortgage valuation?

    If you had a full valuation I would epxect that to include more information about tthe type of construction, any specific issues etc.

    In terms of selling on, I doubt that it would have any adverse effect on the price.A lot of people like to think that their home has some hostory behind it, so it may be an advantagerather than an issue.

    You vendors may not have realised the age of the proeprty (just because they had the deeds, doesn't mean that they ever actually read them)
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 13th Mar 17, 11:34 AM
    • 14,785 Posts
    • 13,139 Thanks
    AdrianC
    When we bought the house the paperwork completed by the owner and our mortgage valuation both came back with an age of 1900 approx.

    A few weeks ago the previous owner popped over with the old (ancient) deeds to the house. By now we've owned the house for a few months. I have a quick scan and some of them go back to 1820's...

    I spoke with the neighbour yesterday over the garden fence and she told me the houses are actually 1700's, and the end of terrace has a sign on her door with the number and age (confirming mid-1700's)
    Originally posted by ST1991
    And does the house look like it's late Victorian, or like it's Georgian?

    Now, whilst i love the house, i feel we have been mis-led a little.
    Really? What changed about the property itself?
    • ST1991
    • By ST1991 13th Mar 17, 12:26 PM
    • 396 Posts
    • 218 Thanks
    ST1991
    Thanks everyone for the replies!

    We didn't have a survey... only a mortgage valuation. The estate agent told us we could have a copy of the previous survey (buyer pulled out) and they sent something on to us about damp. I assumed that was it. I know you should never assume... and i feel very stupid but it's happened now so no point dwelling. We were FTB and fell in love with the house, so we are entirely to blame for not getting a survey but at least now we know.

    The house is in good condition, and we are seeing improvement already on the damp without treating it (tenants never opened windows and we have aired the house out massively). Haven't encountered any other issues whilst redecorating.

    We still love the house, and don't regret buying it. I just wasn't sure if there are any repercussions now we know the 'true' age. E.G have we bought something valued based on it'g age, but it's actually worth less.
    From a quick google i think it looks more Georgian than anything else. Solid stone walls, concrete floors, no DPC.
    • caronoel
    • By caronoel 13th Mar 17, 12:48 PM
    • 713 Posts
    • 915 Thanks
    caronoel
    The actual age of the building is less relevant to its value than the degree to which it has been maintained. In all likelihood much or all of the original fabric of the building has been replaced at least once

    I am minded of Trigger’s response when claiming he still has his original trusty broom:
    “Maintained it for 20 years. This old brooms had 17 new heads and 14 new handles in its time.”
    • Brock_and_Roll
    • By Brock_and_Roll 13th Mar 17, 12:58 PM
    • 750 Posts
    • 719 Thanks
    Brock_and_Roll
    Over such a long period so many "parts" are likely to have been replaced that not much that was part of the original property on the site is likely to remain. The late Victorian era brought about huge technical innovations such as electricity, and plumbing and the installation of all these new comforts was a trigger for a huge alteration in many earlier extant buildings.


    My house, or rather 2 cottages was "built" in 1810, but you would be hard pressed to find much that is more than 50 years old other than a couple of tell-tell thick stone walls, which wont change much in 10,000 years.


    Usually going up in the loft can give you clues - have a look a the roof joists for age. Assuming the property has not been re-roofed you can date it by the style & construction of the joists.


    Enjoy your new house with all its little imperfections - at least it will still be standing in another 200 years - something which cannot be said for the vast majority of todays new builds!
    • Ozzuk
    • By Ozzuk 13th Mar 17, 1:02 PM
    • 1,081 Posts
    • 1,608 Thanks
    Ozzuk
    If you'd bought house because it was built in 1900s and that was a key selling point - advertised as such etc then maybe you'd have some recourse. As it stands, no chance and as others have said it has no real bearing - if anything it makes it more attractive!
    • caprikid1
    • By caprikid1 13th Mar 17, 1:28 PM
    • 436 Posts
    • 456 Thanks
    caprikid1
    I think its probably added to the value not detracted
    • Keezing
    • By Keezing 13th Mar 17, 2:33 PM
    • 261 Posts
    • 225 Thanks
    Keezing
    That's fantastic news OP, I would be blown away if my house from 1910 was actually a 1700s house!

    Think of the history! :-)
    • G_M
    • By G_M 13th Mar 17, 4:54 PM
    • 40,528 Posts
    • 46,369 Thanks
    G_M
    That's fantastic news OP, I would be blown away if my house from 1910 was actually a 1700s house!

    Think of the history! :-)
    Originally posted by Keezing
    Wow! 300 years!

    Just imagine how many people have died in the property in that time!
    • AnotherJoe
    • By AnotherJoe 13th Mar 17, 5:07 PM
    • 7,052 Posts
    • 7,518 Thanks
    AnotherJoe
    We still love the house, and don't regret buying it. I just wasn't sure if there are any repercussions now we know the 'true' age. E.G have we bought something valued based on its age, but it's actually worth less.
    .
    Originally posted by ST1991
    LOL of course not, properties are valued on various attributes (of which location, famously is the main one) such as size, number of rooms, condition. Age is an irrelevance unless perhaps it was 500 years old and you can prove Shakespeare lived there at some point.
    Last edited by AnotherJoe; 13-03-2017 at 5:17 PM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,768Posts Today

5,403Users online

Martin's Twitter