OH MY GOODNESS - the house price crash hits home!

carolt

Deleted_User wrote: »

Would you consider buying it Carol? How much damage have they done to the property? If it's not too much (i.e. if the price has dropped mainly because of the crash and not because of what the current owners have done to it) it could turn out that you get the house you originally wanted at a bargain price?

I for one can understand why you're announcing the news! I would too. It's really nice when a decision, or something out of your control, turns out to be to your advantage. Especially when you were very dissapointed at the time it happend.

No - I thought on it for a mo - we could borrow the money from family, buy as cash buyers and do it up and then mortgage it to pay back family once the work was done, if I wanted to go down that route.

But now that we know we don't plan to stay in the area, there's really no point. We might make some money out of it, if house prices didn't fall - but why would I give myself that level of hassle? I have no desire to be a property developer and even less to be a BTL landlord.

TBH, we were lucky with the timing - we had a very short time to be disappointed in, as house prices first shot up - but then crashed within 6 months to a year. So generally, we viewed it as a narrow escape.

Davesnave

lostinrates wrote: »

re those asking for links, I don't give them either, if its a house we still may be considering or ones that I am ''aware'' of what was happening behind the scenes. The kind of information that would make the tale interesting would also be either to revelationary about the people who have lived in them/damage prospects of their sales/purchases etc or leave a nice trail to where we eventally go.

Agree entirely. I could post links to a number of places where we baulked at the price, and where, subsequently, we've been proved correct by quite substantial price readjustments. What good would it do, and why should we rub the owners' noses in their own inability to sell? Been there too!;)

carolt

julieq wrote: »

Yes Carol, but you'd be three years closer to the end of your mortgage, at which point you stop paying. You incur those mortgage repayment costs from the point at which you buy but unlike rent they end.

So that is a net cost to you of three years of rent to offset against a notional fall in value had you trashed the house and decided to sell now. Had you stayed there until 2011 and then sold you would be 5 years into your mortgage instead of having paid rent for 5 years, you would most likely have equity, and I'm guessing you wouldn't have trashed the house.

So it seems you're probably down on the deal.

How the hell do you work that one out, julie? I thought you were brighter.

If my interest costs are higher than the rent, I'm only nearer to paying off my mortgage if the amount I'm paying towards the repayment costs is greater than the amount the property has gone down in value.

Do you really imagine I'd have been paying out nearly 12K a year in repayment on top of interest costs?

That would be one hell of a mortgage.

In reality, my repayment mortgage would have paid off about 15K after 5 years, if I remember correctly. Plus that's not free money - that would have come ot of my earnings instead of adding to my savings. I haven't lost that money - it's in my savings account rather than having been thrown down the bottomless pit that this house would have been. And mine's been earning interest (albeit not much).

Plus obviously I've also saved on the fact my rent costs a couple of hundred pounds less than my interest costs would have been.

Can't be bothered to work out total savings - if anyone feels so inclined, go ahead.

carolt

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

There is no way any reasonable person could make the claims about house prices she does, and expect anyone to believe them. Narrowing down your location to a county or city is in no way identifying of who you are, and would easily shut up her critics if the indices back her up. The ONLY reason she refuses to do so, is because whe knows full well the indices will not back her up.

So is silvercar a sockie of mine then, Hamish?

Or how the hell do you explain the fact that silvercar has found the link? (Which I'm fine with, as silvercar is not a nutter.)

silvercar

interesting - how far off from peak are they?

Well that wreck is being marketed at 12% less than it actually achieved when sold in 2007.

Not many sold in that road all together. Only two houses sold in 2008, both at way more than any others, so assuming that they were different in some way, prices are now down 10% on achieved prices in 2007. If you want to take 2008 as the high point then prices have dropped nearly 30% compared to the average of those two 2008 houses, though I suspect those two houses must be special in some way.

Batchy

julieq wrote: »

So to summarise:

1) If you wreck a house it's worth less than if it's not

so if that is such a revalation then why not complete it the work??? or is it because they are not willing to sink money into a depreciating asset further still.

julieq wrote: »

2) House prices are lower now than at the peak of the market

Glad you agree with the OP

julieq wrote: »

3) Carol has paid 3 years of rent since not buying this house.

Instead of paying interest only on a mortgage on an overvalued property which she doesn't (as the bank actually does own it) own, servicing debt, and being trapped in for a period she may not want to be?

Do you really think that people who have waited to buy will not appreciate being in a position to buy a better house now for less money, the fact is to pay down 35k capital value on a house in 2 years is not unheard of, but its hard work, and just as easy in that case to just save 35k as case in the bank, where it attracts interest, rather small yes ... but still.

sigh....

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Cleaver wrote: »

Your anecdotal stories about restaurants in Aberdeen being busy seemed worthy enough for you to start a thread about, so what's the difference with this one?

If I post about Aberdeen, I am giving a location that can be verified. Someone questioning my claims about it doing well can cross reference the local economic figures, or house price data, or unemployment, and question my analysis if they think I am wrong.

carolt just makes vague claims about everything being crashtastic in her neck of the woods, whilst refusing to narrow down the area to within a nicely anonymous, but still housing index verifiable, half million people or so.

It's obviously fiction.

Honestly Hamish, it's a little bit odd to see someone so defensive and, well, vitriolic towards someone who has a different point of view on something. .

It has nothing to do with different viewpoints. There are some bearish posters on this board who are very challenging debate opponents, and who I respect immensely. But I have no patience for idiotic, unsourced, fiction masquerading as fact, particularly from posters who repeatedly attack me.

Batchy

julieq wrote: »

Yes Carol, but you'd be three years closer to the end of your mortgage, at which point you stop paying. You incur those mortgage repayment costs from the point at which you buy but unlike rent they end.

So that is a net cost to you of three years of rent to offset against a notional fall in value had you trashed the house and decided to sell now. Had you stayed there until 2011 and then sold you would be 5 years into your mortgage instead of having paid rent for 5 years, you would most likely have equity, and I'm guessing you wouldn't have trashed the house.

So it seems you're probably down on the deal.

you need to do more calculations ... I assume what would have been the case would the house cost less payments and deposit would probably leave the property in negative equity even still which would mean OP wouldnt be able to move for school reasons, which she needs/ wants to... which would give a little uncertainty to the I WANT TO MOVE FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES.

the only way in the current economic climate is to do as the OP plans... any other methods would leave the OP kicking herself, for one reason or another being locked into a house, and not being able to afford to move.

silvercar

carolt wrote: »

Not in that street or equivalent, silvercar

I was looking for older properties that were the same number of beds, I don't know the roads that well in that area.

carolt wrote:

Pricier properties may be ie those where those buying them can use existing equity to garner a good mortgage rate.

Houses aimed at first-time buyers can't afford to - the rates available to them aren't good enough.

With respect, I don't think you are a typical first time buyer in that you are looking for a family home rather than a single/ couple pad.

carolt wrote:

BTW - Thanks for pointing out to the doubting thomases (or Hamishes ) that the house does actually exist and I haven't made it up. )

carolt wrote:

So is silvercar a sockie of mine then, Hamish?

Or how the hell do you explain the fact that silvercar has found the link? (Which I'm fine with, as silvercar is not a nutter.)

Anyone who thinks we are one and the same, clearly hasn't spent enough time on here.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

carolt wrote: »

How the hell do you work that one out, julie? I thought you were brighter.

carolt wrote: »

So is silvercar a sockie of mine then, Hamish?

Or how the hell do you explain the fact that silvercar has found the link? (Which I'm fine with, as silvercar is not a nutter.)

Well that didn't take long.

Leopard, spots, you know the rest........



I'll expect Spartacus Mills, champion of the victimised, defender against ad hominem, to come charging along on that white horse shortly.......








Any time now......









Or maybe not......










Ah..... I thought so.