Prices Stable or Rising in 94% of the UK....

googler

But let's assume for the moment that the scenario you outlined DOES apply, and only one of these 13 actually handles any sales.

Doesn't that make the figures even LESS reliable, since the RICS is gathering a subset of the overall data via a subset of its members?

Again, there's no way this can be taken as a representative sample.

[Deleted User]

Cleaver wrote: »

So you're bascially saying that houses are unaffordable for first time buyers?

But hasn't that ALWAYS been the case for most people? Certainly when I was starting out very, very few people that I knew started out buying a house. Those that did had help from family or substantial savings. We worked hard for, and were proud of, the type of properties that young people on here are turning their noses up and ridiculing.

In the 50's my parents' first home was a 3 bedroomed house, but they saved for 10 years to get that because they needed a 50% deposit back then. Although comfortably off in later life they struggled big time for many years - 10 years before they could afford to have kids and there were few luxuries when I was a child.

My brother started out in a house, but it was an ex-council house that was very cheap. Probably cheaper than a flat.

I worked with hundreds of 20 and 30 somethings in the 80's and the norm was to start married life in a flat. Even amongst fairly well off couples.

Average age of first time buyers was always about 34.

I think part of the problem is we've recently gone through a time when very young people had such high wages and easy credit that they were able to start out in nice houses. That's given young people the impression that it's the norm and they feel they're missing out if they can't have the same.

And of course, there are now lots of parents in a position to help their kids get houses (due to hpi). That was less common in the past.

But historically the norm has been to struggle in the beginning. My generation and previous generations accepted that was the norm - it's all we knew and we enjoyed the challenge. Nowadays youngsters have higher expectations so they're frequently dissapointed.

googler

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Oh dear.....

You do understand that RICS members primarily work for independant firms of chartered surveyors, who conduct surveys on behalf of all the various selling agents and/or buyers and banks in their area..... They do not usually work for Estate Agents.

I take it you also understand that Estate Agents have less than 10% of the Scottish market..... Most sales up here are through Solicitors cooperatives. The SPC members.

To put it into perspective, Rightmove currently lists 20 properties for sale in Aberdeen, of which 7 listings are duplicates for a single development, and one is a shop. So there are 12 residential properties for sale......

Whereas ASPC lists 553 properties for sale in the city centre, and/or 919 for sale in the wider Aberdeen urban housing area.

Actually, of course you don't understand even such basic facts.

Otherwise you would not have been pursuing this red herring to begin with.

From the list quoted, I know for certain that CKD Galbraith and Rettie handle residential sales in my part of Scotland. What do you know of the rest? If they're not quoting from the sale prices acheived through their firm, are they quoting 'prices' based on their survey values, or are they polling others in their town? If either of the latter, that makes the data even more shaky

Where's the backup for the 'less than 10%' figure, other than that quoted by the SPCs? Have a look at West Lothian, where the local SPC has less than 50% market share at the moment. But what relevance does this EA vs. Solcitor/EA talk have in relation to what RICS are quoting.....?

More to the point, quoting Rightmove vs. Solicitor doesn't have any relevance to EA vs. Solicitor unless you're trying to convince us that EVERY EA property in Aberdeen(shire) is on Rightmove.....

I understand the Scottish EA vs. Solicitor/EA situation very well. I live here too.


"Actually, of course you don't understand even such basic facts.

Otherwise you would not have been pursuing this red herring to begin with"

Why not just address the points I raised, rather than embellishing your response with petty insult?

PasturesNew

So, if Hamish was brought up in an area of high wages and low house prices, if he got a good education and one of those top paying jobs with a future, if he had a well-paid partner (or any partner) .. AND .. had a hand out from the parents .... can he not see that that's not the norm?

[Deleted User]

PasturesNew wrote: »

So, if Hamish was brought up in an area of high wages and low house prices, if he got a good education and one of those top paying jobs with a future, if he had a well-paid partner (or any partner) .. AND .. had a hand out from the parents .... can he not see that that's not the norm?

I think that was his point. He's saying that it's never been the norm for first time buyers to start out in a house. He was only able to do so because of help from his parents - despite the fact that he and his wife were high earners.

It's certainly true of me and my hubby - we got our first house aged 36. That was ten years ago. A few people on this board have commented that I'm 'wealthy' and 'lucky' but at age 35 I was living in a flat that had a kitchen, lounge and double-bed-sized-alcove off the lounge and a long, thin bathroom where you had to step over the toilet to get to the bath. It's all we could afford.

carolt

Deleted_User wrote: »

But hasn't that ALWAYS been the case for most people? Certainly when I was starting out very, very few people that I knew started out buying a house. Those that did had help from family or substantial savings. We worked hard for, and were proud of, the type of properties that young people on here are turning their noses up and ridiculing.

In the 50's my parents' first home was a 3 bedroomed house, but they saved for 10 years to get that because they needed a 50% deposit back then. Although comfortably off in later life they struggled big time for many years - 10 years before they could afford to have kids and there were few luxuries when I was a child.

My brother started out in a house, but it was an ex-council house that was very cheap. Probably cheaper than a flat.

I worked with hundreds of 20 and 30 somethings in the 80's and the norm was to start married life in a flat. Even amongst fairly well off couples.

Average age of first time buyers was always about 34.

I think part of the problem is we've recently gone through a time when very young people had such high wages and easy credit that they were able to start out in nice houses. That's given young people the impression that it's the norm and they feel they're missing out if they can't have the same.

And of course, there are now lots of parents in a position to help their kids get houses (due to hpi). That was less common in the past.

But historically the norm has been to struggle in the beginning. My generation and previous generations accepted that was the norm - it's all we knew and we enjoyed the challenge. Nowadays youngsters have higher expectations so they're frequently dissapointed.

As we've discussed before, your personal experiences are totally at odds with mine.

Both my parents and my brother bought houses (not flats) in nice areas, as their first properties (the former in the late 50's, the latter in the mid-80's) and both were on lower than average wages.

Neither put down anything like 50% or saved for a decade to get a deposit together.

Nothing I've read elsewhere suggests the examples you refer to were anything other than highly atypical.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Deleted_User wrote: »

I think that was his point. He's saying that it's never been the norm for first time buyers to start out in a house. He was only able to do so because of help from his parents - despite the fact that he and his wife were high earners..

Thats EXACTLY the point.

People here seem to assume an FTB should be able to buy a proper house, and skip the whole flat buying stage, and do so without help from parents.

This has never been the case though, for most people, in most areas.

I gave the example of myself, and my parents, and their parents. In other words, at least since WW2, where it was normal for FTB's to get help if they wanted more than a flat as their first house.

And the same holds true today.

Charterhouse

Hamish. With the greatest of respect, I do not believe it was the norm until very recently to buy flats. London is now nearly 50% flats, but around a third of those were converted from existing houses, and the rest purpose built since the second world war. Other towns have lagged behind with the move towards flats. Unfortunately (I have no evidence for this but it's my suspicion) the move towards flats is actually a result of the spiralling of house prices.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Thats EXACTLY the point.

People here seem to assume an FTB should be able to buy a proper house, and skip the whole flat buying stage, and do so without help from parents.

This has never been the case though, for most people, in most areas.

I gave the example of myself, and my parents, and their parents. In other words, at least since WW2, where it was normal for FTB's to get help if they wanted more than a flat as their first house.

And the same holds true today.

Hamish, with everything else you say about affordability at it's highest level, owner occupancy, people missing the boat, people wanting to much etc....

...and then that...

I'm afraid it's time for your spade to be confiscated.

It takes just one look into your own personal circumstances to see you are just one of us lot. Someone who couldn't afford, but got lucky with the handout.

Skipping the flat and going into the house enabled you to do better than others.

You may not understand why people have issues with what you say. It's simply that you had help, couldn't have done it without the help, condemn others that can't do it without help and belittle them, and cheer house price increases at every available opportunity.

chucky

Charterhouse wrote: »

Hamish. With the greatest of respect, I do not believe it was the norm until very recently to buy flats. London is now nearly 50% flats, but around a third of those were converted from existing houses, and the rest purpose built since the second world war. Other towns have lagged behind with the move towards flats. Unfortunately (I have no evidence for this but it's my suspicion) the move towards flats is actually a result of the spiralling of house prices.

most of London's conversion properties were done in the 70s and 80s.

as houses became more expensive and space becomes more limited - flats are the only option.

they've become an additional rung on that housing ladder.