Halifax down 0.5% MoM, 15% YoY

Graham_Devon

misskool wrote: »

Not looking to pick a fight but at least your daughter will have an inheritance to fall back on, many people don't and work their way up to what they want in life.

There are no "rights" for anyone to have to buy their own house, that's why people rent and/or in social housing. It's a "want" and it's something that exists in this country because long term renters have no security on their homes.

The social welfare bill has gone through the roof to support people who cannot afford house prices, or, to rent with house prices, so get housing benefit.

This is not a good situation to be in.

I don't believe it's a want. Housing is a need. If prices keep going up, so does the social welfare bill, so do our taxes, and life get's harder and harder, working longer hours and longer in terms of lives to survive.

I'd like to ask you, what good actually comes from your viewpoint? Investors do well. That's the only thing I can think of.

carolt

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yes, fair enough, except it isn't 32%, it's more like 10%.

Roughly...... 68% are owner occupiers, 22% are in subsidised social/council housing, and have no need or desire to own as they have cheap rent for life, 10% are in private rented and presumably want to buy one day.

What gives you the right to speak for those in social housing? Right-to-buy proved beyond a doubt that many if not the vast majority of those in social housing wished to own their own homes.

So you want to steal from the many, to give to the few. How very Robin Hood of you.....

Hardly stealing - unless everyone who lives currently in houses are planning to be homeless and cash in the value, the price of their house makes no difference to them; the only homeowners affected are BTL landlords and those at the top of the chain now looking to downsize, who are obviously those who have benefitted most - through no merit of their own - through HPI and can most afford to lose some of that unearned benefit. EVERYONE ELSE, whether homeowners planning to upsize, or FTB's, will be made better off by falling prices.

Unless you are stupider than I thought, this is easily apparent to you - but you, I suspect, fall either into the category of property 'investor' in !!!! creek, or professional troll - I can see no other reason for choosing to deliberatley ignore this.

I have no problem admitting my VI, I suspect you on the other hand would rather try to obfuscate yours.....

No, I just admitted it in the post to which you are replying.

You want to redistribute wealth to the bottom rung of the ladder, from those approaching retirement at the top rung of the ladder. Putting aside the fact that they need it more than you due to the government squandering their pensions to support the benefits culture at the bottom of society, and that they have worked for a lifetime to get it......

No, they didn't work for a lifetime to get it. HPI created it out of thin air.

Shame about their pensions, but then, frankly, it's hardly as though the younger generation being asked to pay for their pensions through hosing costs is going to do any better, is it? In fact, this is more or less the golden age of pensions. Todays retirees enjoy a standard of living, on average, far beyond the one future generations will enjoy.

Why exactly is it you think this is fair, right or in any way appropriate? Where does it say anywhere that EVERYONE should be able to afford to buy a house? That has never been the case. Home ownership is at an all time high (actually its slipped a little in the last couple of years, but close enough). As little as 100 years ago, 90% of the property was owned by 10% of the people in this country......

No-one says everyone SHOULD be able to afford a house, and I don't expect that everyone will. It's not a moral issue (well, maybe it should be, but that's for a different thread....). In our current political and economic system, there is no right to home ownership. That does not however mean that all basic eceonomic laws can be ignored. All ponzi schemes, however large scale - see Madoff's - eventually fail once they run out of mugs with means at the bottom. Arguably, there are still enough mugs, but I fail to see where they are going to get the means to support house prices at current levels in this economic climate.

Or maybe you're quite prepared to just admit you have a VI, and want a cheap house, and don't care which retiree has to suffer in his/her old age due to their downsize being curtailed for you to get it.

I don't want anyone to suffer, actually.

It's very clear that you, however, do.

ess0two

carolt wrote: »

Hadn't noticed anyone ganging up on me here, at least not since that waster Dithering Dad got the push.

But thanks anyway.

Rather a rude insult about a past forum member.

moggylover

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Ok, it's only 3 week's pay but I don't earn a lot - I get paid even less.

My house was worth over 10x my salary at peak. I think it should level out at 6x once the cra...orrection completes but may well dip to 5x as the rollercoaster overshoots. That said, I hear that where I live is immune to the rest of the world and bungalows only ever go up.

Now, where's my gyro? Ah, here it is...



GG

That article about bungalows really made me laugh as I live in West Wales which is the bungalow capitol of the World and the prices have DEFINITELY dropped here:D

carolt

ess0two wrote: »

Rather a rude insult about a past forum member.

As if he was so polite!

No more than he deserves.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

The forum is a much nicer place now he's gone.

moggylover

Harry_Powell wrote: »

We've been house hunting for a while and have seen a couple of 'forced sale' properties, they're not in great condition and they're not being given away either.

In one fo them the previous owners went BR and ripped out anything of value from the property while it was still 'theirs'. The place was gutted and would have cost a fortune to put right.

I used to believe that the LR figures shoudl include repo's but after seeing some of them, I've changed my mind, they're priced at a lower value for a reason.

Out of interest, is anyone else here actively looking? We're having real difficulty finding anything decent at the moment, and I'd like to know if we're just too picky or whether anyone else is having the same problems.

I am looking at the moment, and tbh the problem we are having is that most of the houses up the ladder from us are still being marketed at far too high a price (some of them have been on since 2006 without adjusting the prices so not just sour grapes from me). Seems to be an area with an awful lot of[STRIKE]ostrichs[/STRIKE] people who do not watch the news!

It is an area where a lot of the housing stock is in poor condition anyway (even when spending a very large amount of money) so I was expecting to have to do work to whatever I bought, but am really not impressed with what is out there at the moment.

Am actually having plans drawn up with the hope of being able to extend our one story cottage to two to gain the extra rooms we want because at least we don't have to tackle damp and dry rot and so forth in our house before we can even decorate:rolleyes:

Also looking for a decent plot with some land in the longer term hope of building what I want because what is out there is soooo carp!

moggylover

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And that would be exactly why it's ridiculous to include them in the LR figures. Why include all the fire damaged, tenant vandalised, half gutted or uncared for dregs of the market? It serves no purpose for practical comparisons of quality properties that most normal people would actually want to buy.

The types of specialist buyers that would take on repo's and distressed properties already know what they're going for at auction.

And the total volumes are low, at a projected 65K this year, thats only a few K more than last months sales. One months sales is not enough to seriously swing the market, particularly given how many of them are in terrible condition.

I think you are seriously over-stating the condition of such properties! I have seen some go at auction around here that have been in much better condition than some of those being marketed normally (or at least in no worse condition) and a friend recently bought a lovely four bedroomed repo (would probably have been on the market normally for around £200K) for £129K and it really only needs decorating and a bit of up-dating (built 60's).

A "fair" view of the market when dealing with averages should, imo, contain ALL of the houses sold and auction prices (where a degree of auction fever actually works in the propertys favour in some cases) are as valid as any other.

Many repos are in perfectly acceptable condition (although not Kirstied to death on the presentation front:rolleyes:) and I certainly don't see any reason why they should be discounted from the figures. They often give a good indication of what people with cash waiting are willing to pay for a property: imo a better indication of what it is "worth" than the asking prices in an EAs window:D

moggylover

carolt wrote: »

True, but I don't think that applies to all repos.

I doubt one would need to spend £50K re-instating either;)

And I HAVE often been to auctions in the area and have seen some exceptionally good houses go out that way so would not take their figures out of the mix at all!

I very much doubt that Sotherbys would like us to think that an auction is just a place to dump rubbish:D

moggylover

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yes, fair enough, except it isn't 32%, it's more like 10%.

Roughly...... 68% are owner occupiers, 22% are in subsidised social/council housing, and have no need or desire to own as they have cheap rent for life, 10% are in private rented and presumably want to buy one day.

So you want to steal from the many, to give to the few. How very Robin Hood of you.....

I have no problem admitting my VI, I suspect you on the other hand would rather try to obfuscate yours.....

You want to redistribute wealth to the bottom rung of the ladder, from those approaching retirement at the top rung of the ladder. Putting aside the fact that they need it more than you due to the government squandering their pensions to support the benefits culture at the bottom of society, and that they have worked for a lifetime to get it......

Why exactly is it you think this is fair, right or in any way appropriate? Where does it say anywhere that EVERYONE should be able to afford to buy a house? That has never been the case. Home ownership is at an all time high (actually its slipped a little in the last couple of years, but close enough). As little as 100 years ago, 90% of the property was owned by 10% of the people in this country......

Or maybe you're quite prepared to just admit you have a VI, and want a cheap house, and don't care which retiree has to suffer in his/her old age due to their downsize being curtailed for you to get it.

I don't have a VI, I own my own house outright and have just sold the house I inherited from my mother so have ample dosh to play with. However, I still do not see that anyone has the right to expect the house prices to stay through the roof just to provide for their old age!!!! Ridiculous idea. Anyway, if you are truly "downsizing" (and many who retire to this area are looking to buy bigger and pretend they were landed gentry before they arrived here hence my comment) then you will not really loose out as the house you are buying will have dropped just as much as yours has and the "balance" that you save, plus the smaller bills will still be a great deal of help in your impoverished dotage:rolleyes:

Cannot see where your antipathy to those wanting sensibly priced homes for those that need them comes from tbh!

lostinrates

Lots of country properties, many very desirable ones, go to auction. Some have ties/restrictions, lots do not. At least half the properties we have considered hve been going to auction, the rest seem to end up as bnest and final offers/seal bids. Although the idea of auction is uncomfortable to me I think its a better option than sealed bids.