House prices are close to affordable levels, reveals survey... BUY!! BUY!!! BUY!!!

chucky

carolt wrote: »

ndg has just pointed out (politely) to you chucky, that you're talking nonsense - Camden the borough and Camden the local area are 2 different things.

You clearly don't know London at all, or you wouldn't post such rubbish.

ok Carol - let's take this from the beginning.

here is your post:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=15164293&postcount=46

and here is your statement in your post:
"As I can clearly remember average 2 bed flats (in perfectly nice areas in zones 2-3), going for 55-67K, and flats in Camden for 72K, for example - around 12 years ago, the idea that London has always been unaffordable, or that this is the 'typical' position is just blatant nonsense."

if your going to change your stament please go back and re-word everything and just say that you've made a mistake. property in london is probably one of the least affordable in the UK due to the large amount of foreign investment and domestic investment.

London Boroughs – Ranked by % Change 1996 -2006

Camden
1996* Average Price* 131,029
2006* Average Price* 443,033
% change 238%

Kensington & Chelsea, Westminster and Camden were the three most expensive boroughs in the capital in both 1996 and 2006.*

Here is the link to the Halifax document to back this up!
http://www.hbosplc.com/economy/includes/14-04-06HalifaxHousePriceSurveyLondon%20Boroughs.doc

If Camden was the most expensive borough in London - how could it be affordable!? The average price of £131k in 1996 does not sound at all affordable even if it is an average: mean, median or even mode!!!

maybe it was the bedsit you spent your time in London with the rest of the hippie commune was where you got your calculations from.

as for not knowing London - i've lived here all of my life and have invested in property in the late 1980s, 1990s and again since 2000.

carolt

Not the area figures, you nana! His own house!

After all, we can all check the auction price, can't we?

Realy

We haven't had a good house price fight for ages.
Go on you lot.:rotfl:

hethmar

Harry Hill?

carolt

chucky wrote: »

ok Carol - let's take this from the beginning.

here is your post:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=15164293&postcount=46

and here is your statement in your post:
"As I can clearly remember average 2 bed flats (in perfectly nice areas in zones 2-3), going for 55-67K, and flats in Camden for 72K, for example - around 12 years ago, the idea that London has always been unaffordable, or that this is the 'typical' position is just blatant nonsense."

if your going to change your stament please go back and re-word everything and just say that you've made a mistake. property in london is probably one of the least affordable in the UK due to the large amount of foreign investment and domestic investment.

London Boroughs – Ranked by % Change 1996 -2006

Camden
1996* Average Price* 131,029
2006* Average Price* 443,033
% change 238%

Kensington & Chelsea, Westminster and Camden were the three most expensive boroughs in the capital in both 1996 and 2006.*

Here is the link to the Halifax document to back this up!
http://www.hbosplc.com/economy/includes/14-04-06HalifaxHousePriceSurveyLondon%20Boroughs.doc

If Camden was the most expensive borough in London - how could it be affordable!? The average price of £131k in 1996 does not sound at all affordable even if it is an average: mean, median or even mode!!!

maybe it was the bedsit you spent your time in London with the rest of the hippie commune was where you got your calculations from.

as for not knowing London - i've lived here all of my life and have invested in property in the late 1980s, 1990s and again since 2000.

Then how come you didn't know that Camden was an area not just a borough, and that Primrose Hill was just a very small subset of the area of Camden?

If you wish to believe that my friend's place is imaginary - that's up to you.

But given I've been there many times - and it's certainly no 'hippy commune', though you appear to have been smoking something this morning - it certainly seemed pretty real and solid to me.

Believe what you will.

At the end of the day, house prices are coming back down again, to real affordability - which is what you and people like our loser friend whose just bought a property 2 days ago, fear most.

Arguing over 12 year old data is not going to change that, I'm afraid.

House prices have been desperately overpriced, by any historic standard. Hoping that was going to last was not really realistic. It's a shame that there will be innocent victims of this.

Equally though, it's nice to feel that some of those who will lose out are like ess0two.

carolt

Realy wrote: »

We haven't had a good house price fight for ages.
Go on you lot.:rotfl:

It's been most pleasantly quiet since the trolls were banished.

Actually been able to talk about house prices! Hurrah!

To be fair, at least chucky is trying to use facts.

He just finds it difficult.

Realy

Try this then it should settle any arguments.

http://www.acadametrics.co.uk/StatisticalHPC.php?PHPSESSID=37aec156a1e734e1f0c4bb4be1227142

Its not bad I just tried it, we sold ours in July and it was £10K below our sale price so not far out at all.

carolt

Not really.

As it is based entirely on guesswork:

"Since the date of purchase was earlier than 1st January 2000 (when the Land Registry county and London borough house price data commenced), growth to 31st December 1999 was estimated using the above "pre-2000" and "2000 and later" region prices and growth from 1st January 2000 was estimated using the "pre-2000" and "2000 and later" county prices."

WTF?_2

chucky wrote: »

for the man that continually starts threads and frequently posts links in his posts I don't think the 'google searching' statement stands up here - so you can't save the day for Carol on this one !!!!!!... but i would say that if you've joined this discussion for personal reasons can we please stay on topic
please?

These are Halifax calculations - aren't they the 'bible' of the HPC gang along with the Nationwide figures!?

and as for Carol immediately seeing a hypnotist - i'm indifferent.

I'm saying that Googling up an average price for the Borough of Camden doesn't invalidate Carol's personal experiences of seeing prices much lower than that 'in Camden' (which as NDG has pointed out may be much lower than the Borough) in that year.

Realy

carolt wrote: »

Not really.

As it is based entirely on guesswork:

"Since the date of purchase was earlier than 1st January 2000 (when the Land Registry county and London borough house price data commenced), growth to 31st December 1999 was estimated using the above "pre-2000" and "2000 and later" region prices and growth from 1st January 2000 was estimated using the "pre-2000" and "2000 and later" county prices."

No offence but so is nearly everything posted relating to house prices crashing on this site, Its as close as they can get it and seems to be reasonably acurate:rolleyes: