Local Authority devalued my property

kepharel

mynameisdave wrote: »

Out of interest, how much was the house valued at in 2008?

£290,000...but i still got a mortgage to pay off.

lynzpower

kepharel wrote: »

That's better, but you really do need to work on your presentation skills;). I know that property prices are falling and the reasons nationally why this is happening. In my area house prices have been static for the last couple of years. Estate Agents work on commission and it isn't in their interests to talk a property down. 'If it were not for the fact that......' is the opening for a sentence that has haunted me for the last few days.

Sorry Ive been having a few off days and feeling rather sarky

I think you are wrong here when you say that it isnt in the EAs interest to talk the property down.

Au contraire!!! Its really is, as the EA will then be able to bring whatever low offer they can muster from this sort of market and you will be more open to accepting "whatever" as not only has the property market tanked, but also this building has been built and so forth, so you are really not in a good position etc.

kepharel

lynzpower wrote: »

Sorry Ive been having a few off days and feeling rather sarky

I think you are wrong here when you say that it isnt in the EAs interest to talk the property down.

Au contraire!!! Its really is, as the EA will then be able to bring whatever low offer they can muster from this sort of market and you will be more open to accepting "whatever" as not only has the property market tanked, but also this building has been built and so forth, so you are really not in a good position etc.

U and me both then;). I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

lynzpower

I think also that if you were at 290 a couple of years ago ( and that was when I was very briefly an estate agent) that if you werent getting 290 then you were getting 249,999.99 as no one would approve going over the 250k stamp duty bracket.
It was always a dodgy value at 250-295 and I remember scores of threads on here at the time supporting people who wanted to get this "value" property under 250

StudentMoneySaver

I think people are missing a salient point here, property is only worth an amount if someone actually pays said amount for it. Until someone does, the worth is just notional (i.e. not real).

ILW

kepharel wrote: »

£290,000...but i still got a mortgage to pay off.

That sounds like roughly a bit over 10% drop since 2008. I thought that was about right for most houses.

GDB2222

planning_officer wrote: »

Also, to answer your question - no, you cannot sue anyone or any organisation for loss of value of your property.

It seems odd that people can get compensation for a high speed rail link or a road widening scheme, but not for lots of other types of building that may also be disruptive. Is there any logic to this that I am missing?

Crinz

ILW wrote: »

That sounds like roughly a bit over 10% drop since 2008. I thought that was about right for most houses.

^^^Agreed^^^

I think the OP may be looking at 2 or 3% being knocked off the value due to the drug haven but the rest must be due to falling house prices.

Your estate agents are having you on if they are all claiming that the entire drop is due to this centre. Either that or there are actual, employed morons wondering the street

Doozergirl

kepharel wrote: »

To see a valuation put on my house that is £40,000 less than 2 years ago is galling to say the least.

I'd call that a recession and a house price slump, not the result of a 'resource' across the road that doesn't even exist yet. (One that doesn't even have PP for what you assume and describe) I can't imagine that a community centre in a run down are would have exactly added the £ signs to the value of your house either. I predict no change.

One estate agent's opinion on something which does not exist does not make a valuation.

Doozergirl

GDB2222 wrote: »

It seems odd that people can get compensation for a high speed rail link or a road widening scheme, but not for lots of other types of building that may also be disruptive. Is there any logic to this that I am missing?

Yes. You can still live in a house that isn't placed directly in the path of a high speed train or a motorway and put under a CPO.

It sets a ridiculous precedent if you can claim compensation for a perceived loss of value - that can only be proven by going up for sale and selling.

(EDIT: In the case of high speed rail links I think it's probably right that people get full value and a bit more for a house they had no intention of selling otherwise - it's a lot of stress and hassle to go through to have made no gain)