Phew

JonnyBravo

carolt wrote: »

Don't see why that need follow - but yes, Cleaver - please do check.

Eh?

Surely you do?

If the average is now higher then it is likely that the lowest individual price and the highest individual price will also be higher than their respective counterparts. Surely you see that?
As I said the volatility has made me doubt it but it turns out to be right.

Lowest price in 03 = £177k
Lowest price in 09 = £195k

ah I see my PA beat me to it. Thanks Cleaver.

Harry_Powell

carolt wrote: »

Well, there's not much of 2009 left, so you'd have to get in quick...

But yes, agree entirely. But would I rather be paying the same as someone who bought at peak - or even higher - or the same as I would have paid a few years ago?

It does matter, because local comparisons matter. When negotiating on a propery, if you can point out to the EA that the one down the road has just sold for 2004 prices, it gives greater weight to your 2004-type offer. And makes it more likely that it will be accepted. Which is why I keep watching prices, even though I'm not planning to buy before next year (with the exception of my dream house and/or a total bargain).

lol, true, but then I already bought in 2009 (only 4 days to go ).

I see what you're saying re: 2004 type offer, but surely it's enough to be also to say that the one down the road has just sold for £x and so you're offering a comparable price, without having to mention 2004 prices at all?

I found when negotiating with estate agents that the best policy was to keep it simply, short and to the point because they weren't too bright and a lot was lost in translation between the EA and the seller.

carolt

I know you've only just arrived, ISTL, but do take the time to read the thread before you comment. As another poster, who coincidentally lived in the same road, has verified, every single flat in that street is identical. Obviously, we're not comparing houses with flats - but there are a couple of hundred flats to compare, so there's not really any need, even if it was feasible.

Yes, the decor may vary - but I wouldn't pay 80K for a can of magnolia. Maybe some mug would. But one doesn't need to.

As I stated, the current flat for sale at 250K is not selling. It's overpriced. It is unlikely to sell for more than the average for 2003, just like the last one that sold.

Oh, and very sorry not to have replied for 4 days, but y'know, occasionally I have better things to do.

So you'll apologise now, I assume, for suggesting - well, stating, let's not beat around the bush - that I was lying when I said that individual properties in an individual area were selling for less than they would have reached in 2004.

Or are you going to backtrack like chucky, too?

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Good. Job done.

All this slanging match to basically agree.

But if they were fairly stagnant from 2003 they could not peak at £350K 2007 and fall to £250k (being 2004).

That is not stagnant in my eyes.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

But if they were fairly stagnant from 2003 they could not peak at £350K 2007 and fall to £250k (being 2004).

That is not stagnant in my eyes.

Yes, but your eyes are seeing something completely different, and your desire to disagree has taken over.

No one has said there wasn't a rise inbetween.

carolt

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Eh?

Surely you do?

If the average is now higher then it is likely that the lowest individual price and the highest individual price will also be higher than their respective counterparts. Surely you see that?
As I said the volatility has made me doubt it but it turns out to be right.

Lowest price in 03 = £177k
Lowest price in 09 = £195k

ah I see my PA beat me to it. Thanks Cleaver.

Not really. It's entirely possible that the reverse could be true. That's averages for you.

Cleaver

JonnyBravo wrote: »

ah I see my PA beat me to it. Thanks Cleaver.

No probs boss. Would you like a blow job in return for a pay rise?

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes, but your eyes are seeing something completely different, and your desire to disagree has taken over.

No one has said there wasn't a rise inbetween.

So HPI + Fall = Stagnant too you.

So we never had a fall in prices just stagnation.

Come on graham stagnant means flat not moving up or down any great amount.

carolt

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes, but your eyes are seeing something completely different, and your desire to disagree has taken over.

No one has said there wasn't a rise inbetween.

It's very clear and pretty impossible to argue with the fact that nothing has sold at anything like peak prices since peak. There is 1 person on that road who is probably extremely cross that he paid more than everone else in his very long street, for the identical flat.

Let's hope s/he never reads property price websites and can afford their mortgage and never, ever comes across this thread.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Good. Job done.

All this slanging match to basically agree.

I don't think you read posts properly Graham.

While I have pointed out that the street carolt referred to has pretty much remained stagnant since 2003, I did point out that the properties that have resold in 2009, sold for higher than end of 2004 prices.

I also pointed out using carolt's methodology that they have sold similar to other properties in the same street in 2007.

It appears that this street has not suffered to any large extent from prices rising or dropping and certainly do not appear to have crashed from £350k to under £250k