Phew

carolt

Here you are, chucky.

Surely you can find it - it's only half a dozen posts up. :rolleyes:

carolt wrote: »

Oh, and PS, I compared renting too, just for old time's sake. We paid £900 then, for a very poorly decorated flat. Rightmove currently have a much better looking one for ...£930 (asking - not let, as there are lots of cheaper flats...) So even assuming they do get the extra £30/month, and ignoring the decor...£30 extra, in 6 years?

Hardly justifies all the 'rents are shooting up' headlines, does it? :rotfl:

carolt

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Are you both talking about the other thread? I commented on that, but as the subject is on here too, I'll pass comment here too if that's ok...

Why are you so concerned about the prices in 2003? You can't go back in time to buy then so it's pointless to spend time arguing about it. What you should concentrate on is what prices may be in 6 to 12 months time compared with today.

I sometimes think certain people on here just argue for argument's sake. It's very childlike.

Couldn't agree more, Harry.

Re why people argue about whether prices are at year x levels is because it is a measure of whether and how far house prices have risen or fallen - surely, I'm sure you'll agree, something relevant on a House Prices forum.

Obviously, there are many wise people who find this subject extremely dull, but not usually those who choose to post on a House Prices forum.

chucky

carolt wrote: »

Here you are, chucky.

Surely you can find it - it's only half a dozen posts up. :rolleyes:

i couldn't be bothered to scroll up. it's always better when a woman does the work for you

Hanwell or West Ealing aren't the best indicators of rental values to be fair.

rental values for larger 3 or 4 bed properties as i understand it in the London area haven't increased and probably stayed the same. Ash and the Oak confirmed this recently.

one bed (definetly) and probably imo two flats (in more central areas) is where rental prices have increased probably beyond inflation in London since 2003 to 2008. the road that you mentioned is in Zone 3.

since 2008 they have dropped off though

carolt

Oh right.

So in summary - your points are right. Except for where they're wrong.

Well, glad we've cleared that up, then.

chucky

carolt wrote: »

Oh right.

So in summary - your points are right. Except for where they're wrong.

Well, glad we've cleared that up, then.

not really - you asked for i've given my point of view.

where are they wrong?

Harry_Powell

carolt wrote: »

Couldn't agree more, Harry.

Re why people argue about whether prices are at year x levels is because it is a measure of whether and how far house prices have risen or fallen - surely, I'm sure you'll agree, something relevant on a House Prices forum.

Obviously, there are many wise people who find this subject extremely dull, but not usually those who choose to post on a House Prices forum.

Sorry carolt, I thought the discussion was about you stating you were not rushing to buy a house because prices had stagnated and so there was no rush. Hence my confusion at comparing with 2003 prices rather than more recent ones (say the last 9 months) to see if prices are holding in a certain area.

In my defence, the subjects under duscussion in these threads tend to meander and unless we live on them (like some people do) then it's hard to keep up. If this has moved onto a pure academic discussion about what today's prices are compared with the past, then pray continue and apologies again for my interruption.

BTW, is everyone remembering to factor in inflation and mortage costs into these comparisons? You have to compare like for like....

carolt

chucky wrote: »

not really - you asked for i've given my point of view.

where are they wrong?

Well, you said this:

chucky wrote: »

it seems the usual has happened ISTL... fictional anecdotal without any evidence... :think:

I give you the evidence, and suddenly, you never meant to say that I was lying, or to deny that prices in some areas were indeed back to 2004, as my OP stated (or earlier, in fact :rolleyes:).

Had I stated prices were back to 2004 levels in every area, I would of course be wrong. I simply stated that they were in one particular area which mattered to me. But oh no, as I couldn't post the link for obvious reasons of personal safety, it was stated that therefore this scenario that was, in julieq's words 'at 90 degrees to recorded data' and I was making it up.

Now I'd like you to apologise for implying I was lying. And be man enough to admit you were wrong.

chucky

carolt wrote: »

Well, you said this:



I give you the evidence, and suddenly, you never meant to say that I was lying, or to deny that prices in some areas were indeed back to 2004, as my OP stated (or earlier, in fact :rolleyes:).

Had I stated prices were back to 2004 levels in every area, I would of course be wrong. I simply stated that they were in one particular area which mattered to me. But oh no, as I couldn't post the link for obvious reasons of personal safety, it was stated that therefore this scenario that was, in julieq's words 'at 90 degrees to recorded data' and I was making it up.

Now I'd like you to apologise for implying I was lying. And be man enough to admit you were wrong.

a flat or a couple of flats sold at 2003 prices and now the whole street is selling at 2003 prices despite the majority selling for higher amounts...

here's the averages from Cleavers post - they are currently selling at 11% over 2003 prices. so no they are not selling at 2003 prices

2009 £224,990
2008 £252,375
2007 £246,797
2006 £223,018
2005 £222,615
2004 £211,867
2003 £202,867

you do like to exagerate and stretch a point don't you

carolt

So you're not man enough. Hardly a surprise.

Who needs every flat to sell at 2003 prices? I only need to buy one.

Plus the current property I posted is on at 250K - but not under offer. So presumably still too expensive.

So - to refer to Harry's not unreasonable point that what really matters is how much one would pay NOW, the answer is - less than 2003.

Which is great news for prospective FTB's.

Harry_Powell

carolt wrote: »

So - to refer to Harry's not unreasonable point that what really matters is how much one would pay NOW, the answer is - less than 2003.

Which is great news for prospective FTB's.

Ah, but the question is... will it be cheaper to buy in 2009 than 2010, 2011, etc.? Surely of more interest to prospective FTBers? Especially those of us who were not in the position to buy in 2003. This is what I was trying to get across with my previous post, but failed and I seem to have come across as argumentative. My fault.

In a nutshell, my point is that while it is interesting to compare house prices historically, prospective FTBers should be considering what they think prices will be in the future not the past. While I agree that prices follow certain historical trends, we would have to go back to the Great Depression to have a similar financial implosion to compare against.