Family given £2m house... after complaining 5-bed London home was in "poor area" - DM

olly300

Chaos_A.D. wrote: »

Can I just say again £2 million for a god damn terraced house !!!, where, if you have a car you have to park it on the road !!, jesus you could emigrate to Australia, buy a house on a couple of acres, furnish it and just draw the interest off around $1.7 australian dollars and never have to think about work or this miserable place again.

People must be completely insane.

Or filthy rich.

Most of the people who brought a house like that would have a few homes around the world.

lynzpower

I dont know who mentioned that we arenot"talking about house prices but rental prices" sorry but they are very much interlinked. Estate agents will talk about whether a property is right for BTL based on the yield that it offers. Property with high rental yield IS ( was?) worth more.

Not necessarily Olly, some people who bought houses like this got them for peanuts many years ago.

I always "sigh" at the daily mail when they say "2million" house, who says so, unless its just gone through as a sale and someone RECENTLY ( last month or few) hsas paid £2m then, fine, I'll accept it. But if there are others of a similar ilk up for sale and not selling at this price then SIGH, it aint worth 2 million is it

repeat the mse mantra after me everyone "a house is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it" ( or lender, lend for it)

SingleSue

omen666 wrote: »

How the !!!! does the Local Authority miss this bit?

***He found it through a friend who owns the property

***It was recently advertised at £1050 per week

***The family are now paid £2k per week to pay the landlord.

That was my thought on reading the article....smells of kickback to me.

I'm actually in shock to be honest, the previous property still had a rent per week which was more than mine for two months! The figures are scarily large, so large, my brain is having difficulty comprehending them....

I do like the way they had to add in about the large screen television, the unusual rugs and the lush plants, just to add to the stereotype of all benefits claimants having these...well they would find a flat screen in my house (only a 32 inch) but it is from an insurance claim on a posh telly (well posh to me anyway) I had from married days.

Although, in this case, I can see the television may be the result from a possible kickback on the rent.......

lynzpower

SingleSue wrote: »

That was my thought on reading the article....smells of kickback to me.

I'm actually in shock to be honest, the previous property still had a rent per week which was more than mine for two months! The figures are scarily large, so large, my brain is having difficulty comprehending them....

I do like the way they had to add in about the large screen television, the unusual rugs and the lush plants, just to add to the stereotype of all benefits claimants having these...well they would find a flat screen in my house (only a 32 inch) but it is from an insurance claim on a posh telly (well posh to me anyway) I had from married days.

Although, in this case, I can see the television may be the result from a possible kickback on the rent.......

Lots of "luxe" properties have the flat screens installed in the property as part of the furnished letting, along with sound systems, rugs, art, etc.
Daily wail would never mention that of course

brit1234

lynzpower wrote: »

Lots of "luxe" properties have the flat screens installed in the property as part of the furnished letting, along with sound systems, rugs, art, etc.
Daily wail would never mention that of course

Fair point, but does that mean the tax payer should pay higher rent for such luxurious fittings?

olly300

lynzpower wrote: »

I dont know who mentioned that we arenot"talking about house prices but rental prices" sorry but they are very much interlinked. Estate agents will talk about whether a property is right for BTL based on the yield that it offers. Property with high rental yield IS ( was?) worth more.

Not necessarily Olly, some people who bought houses like this got them for peanuts many years ago.

Yeah I know.

I know people in million pound plus houses but they brought their house in 60's, 70's and 80's when they didn't cost that much due to the house being in an undesirable area.

lynzpower wrote: »

I always "sigh" at the daily mail when they say "2million" house, who says so, unless its just gone through as a sale and someone RECENTLY ( last month or few) hsas paid £2m then, fine, I'll accept it. But if there are others of a similar ilk up for sale and not selling at this price then SIGH, it aint worth 2 million is it

repeat the mse mantra after me everyone "a house is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it" ( or lender, lend for it)

That always makes me chuckle for the reasons you put above and the fact that in the SE even if a house is seen to be worth a lot in comparison to other similar houses in the UK it may be one of the cheapest houses in that specific area.

lynzpower

brit1234 wrote: »

Fair point, but does that mean the tax payer should pay higher rent for such luxurious fittings?

Well not at all, but it doesnt work like that.

I know of an organisation that buys in "furnished lettings" and I also used to do inventories on them too.

They come as part & parcel, you dont get the option of a reduction if the LL takes these frivolities out.

markharding557

Thankfully the governments forthcoming hb cap will put an end to excesses like this,meanwhile who ever has authorised this should be severely disiplined

Fang_3

Bought not brought. Jesus.

lynzpower

markharding557 wrote: »

Thankfully the governments forthcoming hb cap will put an end to excesses like this,meanwhile who ever has authorised this should be severely disiplined

Why should they be disciplined if they are following the guidance sent down by central government?