has anyone used mouseprice.com?

J._Jones

An interesting point from Elise

It's difficult not to be impressed by the fact that after more than a month of inactivity on this web page, Elise has managed to make a reply within minutes of a post being made which was sceptical of Mouseprice's competence. Indeed, it's natural to wonder how much someone would have to be paid to monitor a website quite so closely, and on a Sunday evening too. Certainly the response, coyly defensive about Mouseprice's credibility, justifies GTG's amused query about Elise's exact relationship with the company.

I do laugh out loud, however, at Elise's riposte that the quality of Mouseprice's estimates depends on the quality of the data input. Of course this is true. Indeed, it's a truism. But it avoids addressing the fact that I stated that I'd tried very hard to improve the data by bringing accurate figures to Mouseprice's attention by email, with a cross-reference to an independent on-line site for verification, but they simply *ignored* it and asked instead that I use a form of submission that prevents any substantiating evidence being offered by the owner--leading, inevitably, to them continuing to operate without reference to my proposed re-valuation. This hardly indicates a commitment to improving the quality of data!

It's also hard to avoid smirking at Elise's helpful suggestion that all that's needed when using Mouseprice is "a pinch of salt" about a "ball park" figure. But Elise, I reported a more-than-60% error! To believe such a figure would require not just a pinch but an entire fleet of dumper trucks filled with rock-salt, particularly when it clearly rests on the factually inaccurate assertion that no recent sale price is recorded. As an engineer I can tell you that a few percent here and there is indeed often OK for practical purposes: it's all "in the noise" as we say. But 60%? For Pete's sake,what kind of reliance can be placed on any figure that is so far wide of the mark.

My original point therefore stands. Regard Mouseprice as unreliable unless you have other independent evidence to suggest that their estimate is reasonable.

elise83_2

J._Jones wrote: »

An interesting point from Elise

It's difficult not to be impressed by the fact that after more than a month of inactivity on this web page, Elise has managed to make a reply within minutes of a post being made which was sceptical of Mouseprice's competence. Indeed, it's natural to wonder how much someone would have to be paid to monitor a website quite so closely, and on a Sunday evening too. Certainly the response, coyly defensive about Mouseprice's credibility, justifies GTG's amused query about Elise's exact relationship with the company.

I do laugh out loud, however, at Elise's riposte that the quality of Mouseprice's estimates depends on the quality of the data input. Of course this is true. Indeed, it's a truism. But it avoids addressing the fact that I stated that I'd tried very hard to improve the data by bringing accurate figures to Mouseprice's attention by email, with a cross-reference to an independent on-line site for verification, but they simply *ignored* it and asked instead that I use a form of submission that prevents any substantiating evidence being offered by the owner--leading, inevitably, to them continuing to operate without reference to my proposed re-valuation. This hardly indicates a commitment to improving the quality of data!

It's also hard to avoid smirking at Elise's helpful suggestion that all that's needed when using Mouseprice is "a pinch of salt" about a "ball park" figure. But Elise, I reported a more-than-60% error! To believe such a figure would require not just a pinch but an entire fleet of dumper trucks filled with rock-salt, particularly when it clearly rests on the factually inaccurate assertion that no recent sale price is recorded. As an engineer I can tell you that a few percent here and there is indeed often OK for practical purposes: it's all "in the noise" as we say. But 60%? For Pete's sake,what kind of reliance can be placed on any figure that is so far wide of the mark.

My original point therefore stands. Regard Mouseprice as unreliable unless you have other independent evidence to suggest that their estimate is reasonable.

Geez guys, sorry to burst your conspiracy theory bubble but no I'm not in any way affiliated with Mouseprice and I'm also not sure how you figured that my response was in any way defending mouseprice's valuations because if you read it again, I wasn't. My response was simply based on the fact that when I looked up the place I went to visit yesterday, the details on mouseprice said something like 'there was a 4.2% pa average rise in properties for similar properties in the area' yet when I went to check what their opinion of a 'similar property' was it wasn't comparable in any way. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there is some kind of statistical model built which churns out these figures without any "common sense" check therefore they are a ballpark starting point rather than gospel. With any mathematical model the quality of the outputs depends on the quality of the inputs. If your inputs are rubbish - and you have illustrated this with your demonstration that mouseprice's database was inaccurate - then your outputs need to be taken with a pinch of salt (or a large heap of salt, whatever).

As for the 'timing' of my response - this post appeared on the front page of the forum and I had something to add after my house hunting expedition yesterday. While your 60% error certainly supports my comment about the quality of the inputs, I felt no need to comment on it. I'm not sure why I should have to justify why I haven't commented on someone's post but there you go.

I do use mouseprice myself, but not for their valuations (if you want valuations, do it yourself by looking at what similar properties are going for through local EAs, simple). I find that the land registry details (which I also believe you can get through other websites) are the most useful part and indeed this has helped me in my own negotiations.

Radiantsoul

All the online valuations are based on land registry data. The last sales prices is adjusted for movements in similiar properties in similiar locations. This type of modelling it pretty new and so it is no suprise that it is not 100% accurate.

There is no reason to believe they are going to be as accurate as full valuation or even a drive by valuation by a local agent. But then they are free.

People that seem upset have no real grounds to be as they haven't paid for a service nor have they suffered as a result of an undervaluation.

GTG

Radiantsoul wrote: »

All the online valuations are based on land registry data. The last sales prices is adjusted for movements in similiar properties in similiar locations. This type of modelling it pretty new and so it is no suprise that it is not 100% accurate.

There is no reason to believe they are going to be as accurate as full valuation or even a drive by valuation by a local agent. But then they are free.

People that seem upset have no real grounds to be as they haven't paid for a service nor have they suffered as a result of an undervaluation.

Another factual statement from a forum member not backed by anything from the author.

I would suggest you read this thread again and if english is not your first language then this may assist you http://uk.babelfish.yahoo.com/

I wonder if we can get Martin to introduce a "No thanks" button.

I look forward to your "considered" reply, I feel sure we may get to the bottom of the main source of Mouseprices' revenue.

gazebo

I would personally take the prices shown my mouseprice as laughable.

Reason for this is that my flat is showing as being worth in the region of £155000 according to the site. Having had a valuer in last week, take that figure and reduce it by £100K.

I can compare this to the valuation shown on zoopla which is around the £61k mark (and in truth if it weren't for the mismanagement of the property managers, that's the value I should be looking at), which is far more realistic.

It may not be as bad as this with other people and their properties, but that's my experience.

asharon

my neighbour purchased his house 2 months before me for 15k more. They are identical and yet mouseprice has his as being worth 18k more than mine.

[Deleted User]

spuds wrote: »

Much better to do your own research on the price paid on other houses in that street, I reckon. Base your valuation around these. These sites don't take account of renovation, larger gardens, loft conversion etc., all of which can add to the value of a particular house.

I totally agree...but as per some of my other posts today, it's this sort of behaviour that leads vendors into thinking their house is worth more than it really is.

I've been doing a lot of research recently on house prices to try and work out what to offer on some of the places we like. The problem is often that the value turns on very small things that zoopla can't work out.

In your example, you make the assumption that 'doing work on a house' automatically adds value, which it doesn't. I've lost count the number of botched extensions and poorly-thought-out add-ons I've seen in the past fortnight alone: changes that the owners have made that have completely put me off wanting to put an offer in*

Then, there's the assumption that just by adding something to the house it gives vendors carte blanche to 'add to the price' without quantifying it somehow.

e.g. 'well the average price in our area is £300k, but we completely renovated the kitchen to we reckon it's probably worth £350k'.

I'm going through this issue at the moment - the vendor seems to think that their house has increased in value by 90k in 6 months (27%) whereas zoopla etc are telling me that house prices have increased by 3% in that time.

I've seen this a lot recently - vendors getting a totally unrealistic impression of what their house is worth because they are led to believe that home improvements always add value.

It's also a very a chicken-and-egg scenario: if nothing sells for a while in an area, the 'sold prices' comparison becomes increasingly less useful, but at the same time people still only make offers based upon sold prices, so sometimes (contrary to everything I've just said) vendors may find it hard to justify a guide price when in fact it's perfectly reasonable. e.g. if you bought the house at a low price but then invested tens of thousands in really making the place amazing, adding value to it, people will just use the last sold price to justify a lower offer - and your improvements won't be relevant.

*incidentally, perhaps the most common of these is with vendors installing a downstairs shower room. I just don't get why anyone (excluding those with disabilities) might require a shower room downstairs?

boonkoh

Mouseprice, like Zoopla, is never as accurate as getting an estimate from an EA or a surveyor. The reason is because while these online services might have previously sold price data, they don't have the condition, size, number of rooms, local factors, etc etc that local Estate Agents will have. For example, I don't even this Zoopla or Mouseprice takes into account if a house backs onto railway tracks on one side of the road but not the other.

The estimate tool is there because they know it will attract eyeballs and visitors to their sites.

As a buyer, if you don't want to trust the EA's valuation (as they work for the seller), and you don't want to shell out for surveyor, the best thing you can do is make a list of the sold prices in the same street and adjoining streets, visit the roads and try to see if you can get info about the properties (condition, size, bedrooms, etc), and then using that data come up with a valuation.

Buying property, for many people, is like taking a stab in the dark. The sellers know all about the house they are selling but you only know a bit. The agent knows all about pricing and comparable past sold properties in the area, but you only have knowledge of what's available. So huge disadvantage, and therefore you need to enter any property purchase with utmost caution and prudence.