***House prices up 1.2% in May***

Vinegartits

ad44downey wrote: »

I think pickles999 has been telling porkies AGAIN.

By omission, yes - the house in question last changed hands in 2002 for £385k and was advertised by the bank late last year with a guide price of £419k. Considering it would probably have sold at the peak for somewhere between £700k and £800k (prices doubled here between 2002 and 2007) this is hardly a sign of "green shoots". On the contrary, this house is very attractive, on a huge plot and something of a landmark locally yet it failed to attract a buyer for at least sixth months and when it finally sold (on the back fo the last few months of activity in the market) it only sold for a couple of percent over the guide price.

Felixstowe has few real character houses of this kind and the agent tells me there was initially a great deal of interest in it but no one was prepared to pay the price the banks wanted. The current owner will have to spend some money on it to render it habitable and will not see a profit for many years which is perhaps as it should be.

The real story here is Pickles' vested interest; owning a much less attractive and less desireable house in the same road, he seeks to reassure himself he still stands a chance of selling. However, if a far superior property failed to attract a buyer for 6 months at what was effectively half-price, it would seem he is sunk regardless of his efforts to talk up the Felixstowe market although it is interesting to note the part vested interest plays in biased posting.

purch

There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation

That would be a far better quote to use, but what the heck........lets take the 'society' quote out of context and bash the poor woman over the head with it for all eternity.........it's much easier.

StevieJ

purch wrote: »

That would be a far better quote to use, but what the heck........lets take the 'society' quote out of context and bash the poor woman over the head with it for all eternity.........it's much easier.

With pleasure, it may be out of context in the speech but it nicely sums up the Thatcher
legacy.

Gorgeous_George

Xinpei wrote: »

Hi prince, I suppose it is only natural you come on here with your 'I know how the world works' cap on and rationalise across the trends the way you do because it is your job. it is my job to work out how a chemical plant should operate and how my products will work in it but I do not think you not understanding reaction kinetics is anything to gripe on about.

Your comparison of a house to tin of beans is poor to start with. I agree that if house prices were low to start with or not so stupidly high, it could benefit, like you said, the PUBLIC GOOD. However, there are very normal people out there with families to feed, who bought houses when, guess what, prices were high, and now face repossession just because the banks screwed up. (oh i suppose some of them would have known the financial principles you were talkin about?) It can be hardly down to the fact no one taught them anything about managing money when they were 5.

admittedly there are some silly people who wanted it ALL NOW. I guess what I'm saying is I feel for those who were just innocent bystanders trying to make a life as they could and got pulled in through no fault of their own.

Thus saying house prices should fall for public good is just.. not very circumspect.

Great post.

I feel for those who refused to let delay their body clocks when it wasn't really clear that the market would turn faster that David Cameron on his own MPs.

People were saying prices would crash for years and years. Like the little boy who cried 'Wolf!' Fo rmost people who were maturely ready to settle down, the time was right to buy a home. I have loads more sympathy for these people than for the work-shy, dead beat losers who claim benefits and spend all day dreaming reasons to justify their actions (yes, I know it isn't all benefits claimants). I have more time for these people than for the work-shy, dead beat MPs who spend all day dreaming of ways to claim for something else within the rules.

These people are real people - like you and me. I like to help people. We could take a few pensions away from MPs and bankers for starters. One young family saved from a life of hell would make it worthwhile.

GG

GG

mewbie_2

fatpig wrote: »

Nice one, I love it. So pickles is more or less a pi key. I knew it. I imagine pickles' front garden is practically a rubbish dump. :rotfl:

I imagine it has a full scale model of the Docks, complete with working cranes, railways and gnomes in various poses.

zappahey

dopester wrote: »

What does tick me off is the number of people the government are supporting on their mortgage rescues scheme. However I know that is a dam that has to break, as they can't continue it indefinitely.

I don't really think that two families are going to break the bank

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/5407955/Mortgage-rescue-plan-accepts-just-two-families.html

StevieJ

skap7309 wrote: »

I love this talk of someone being greedy because they want to pay less for something - never quite understood it..............:rolleyes:

And what of the people who would like to see unsustainable house prices ruin any chance of your children get on in life without being a slave to debt, possibly working long hours and putting off starting a family etc - just to get a roof over their head? THATS greed.

Just like the BTLers many of whom were just trying alternative pension investing, never quite understood why you lot call them greedy :rolleyes:

ad44downey

Maybe because they deprive normal, hard-working people of the chance of owning their own home

StevieJ

ad44downey wrote: »

Maybe because they deprive normal, hard-working people of the chance of owning their own home

This lot are waiting for hard-working people (that sounds like a Brownism), to get into financial problems to secure a cheap house :eek:

pickles110564

Banderman wrote: »

What about the buyer then? He's paid more so is in more debt. How's it 'win, win, allround'?

It was the buyers choice and he must have confidence that the market is turning otherwise he would have left well alone.