Flamin' 'Eck, English House Prices Are Cheap.....

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I know a guy that bought a 2 bed flat for £5k, about 10 years ago.
The place was uninhabitable. the who place was gutted internally and replaced (new wiring, replaster plaster & lathe with platsterboard, new floorboards, new kitchen / bathroom etc)
He spent about £30k doing it up and made it into a really nice place.

All in it cost him £35k but it was then worth close to £100k.

My point is that properties that may not be habitable and reduced in price accordingly, could be very MSE if your prepared to out a bit of work into it.

Which is fine.

But it may put the actual cost of the house into the unaffordable bracket if you have to do a load of work on it.

It appears we are solely concentrating on the price, to call it affordable, absolutely regardless of whether its fit for purpose or not. Seems it could be a mere shell, so long as it's called a house, and it's affordable, homes are affordable and people should stop moaning.

moggylover

Cleaver wrote: »

Blimey, what a backward view (if you don't mind me saying). I'm in Manchester and I can assure you that the North West is full of companies and organisations employing people in jobs that pay far more than the minimum wage. Many companies are starting to base headquarters and office bases outside of London to save the high rental costs.

Your post sounds like it's from the '70s.

I don't mind you saying at all Cleaver, but it's a shame you didn't stop to read that I had said it was stated "rather over simply";):D

Indeed, it is a generalisation and as with all generalisations there will be anomalies and large City areas will always make these more obvious and often more difficult to understand.:D

I would suggest, that since unemployment still runs high in that area, that perhaps those relocations have not brought the kind of semi-skilled and production work that is also necessary to produce a truly bouyant economy although I haven't actually visited Manchester since the 1970's (:eek::eek:) so cannot be certain of that.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Which is fine.

But it may put the actual cost of the house into the unaffordable bracket if you have to do a load of work on it.

It appears we are solely concentrating on the price, to call it affordable, absolutely regardless of whether its fit for purpose or not. Seems it could be a mere shell, so long as it's called a house, and it's affordable, homes are affordable and people should stop moaning.

I think you missed the point in my example where the guy ended up with a property worth approx £100k at the time but only spent £35k on it.

Take it at todays prices, lets say you buy the shell for £35k and spend another £35k doing it up.

You could end up with a very nice property, tailored to your desires, that is still way below the market value.

moggylover

MRSTITTLEMOUSE wrote: »

That's true and it's not just feral scum that are the trouble.
We lived in Virginia Waters for several years and there's a lot of "celebrity" scum about.
Don't just think council estates are a problem,they are'nt.
There's just less room between houses on council estates and the problems are a bit different but you can still have your life made hell in the nicer areas.
We live in Newcastle now and there's good and bad here just as there is everywhere else,it's a nice place though on the whole and we got a beautiful house in a nice area for a fraction of what we sold the one down there for.

Well said Mrs T. I lived in Sunningdale for a wee while (only with someone who could actually afford the prices unfortunately:D) and couldn't agree more.

I now live in what should be a truly lovely little village, but what should be heaven has been made into a difficult 20 years because of one theiving, dishonest and dreadful Double-Barrelled and middle-class shoite.

Soft spoken, never swears, not what one would think of as a neighbour from hell, but the single most dishonest and devious little cretin I have EVER had the misfortune to meet:D He is known as the Beast of Brongest to many of us and only the facts that most of the other neighbours are lovely and that he is not often actually "seen" makes his presence tolerable:(

Generali

moggylover wrote: »

Why do I stay? Main reason because my children have extended family here. However, I wasn't bemoaning my lot: I am in the fortunate position of owning my own home (outright) here and having flexible work that I can do from home. That puts me in the minority though and I do not judge others by my own good fortune: I open my eyes and try to make a fairer assessment of the problems experienced by others;):D

Champagne socialist?

I was born to very little and would like to see as many barriers to climbing the pole removed as possible. I want poor people to be rich, most socialists seem intent on making the rich poor.

Well meant socialism keeps people poor.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But it may put the actual cost of the house into the unaffordable bracket if you have to do a load of work on it.

It appears we are solely concentrating on the price, to call it affordable, absolutely regardless of whether its fit for purpose or not. Seems it could be a mere shell, so long as it's called a house, and it's affordable, homes are affordable and people should stop moaning.

exactly the reason why these properties are not listed or included on the Land Registry Index.

thanks for making the point that Repo's are not the same as a 'normal' property for sale...

moggylover

MRSTITTLEMOUSE wrote: »

Is that apart from them being like little tiny shoe boxes,having paper thin walls and having absolutely no character at all :rotfl:.

Be fair Mrs T, you aren't in the position of having to have an "affordable" home so you can be choosy:D I can to some extent as well, and would certainly be VERY careful of some of the ones shown in the Valleys areas of Wales (for instance) due to the subsidence risks prevalent which make them almost impossible to finance except as cash buys.

I'm sure (as Graham pointed out earlier) that there are other areas where such risks heavily down press the prices as well.

moggylover

Generali wrote: »

Champagne socialist?

I was born to very little and would like to see as many barriers to climbing the pole removed as possible. I want poor people to be rich, most socialists seem intent on making the rich poor.

Well meant socialism keeps people poor.

Am I b0ll0cks Generali! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: If my home were a millionaire mansion then perhaps but it isn't!

I was born to a council house (indeed, when actually born my parents were in lodgings, unheard of these days) and have been fortunate enough to make it a short way up the ladder. I've managed comfortable, but do not have the "greed" gene so have little desire for actual wealth (although I do have a taste for good champagne, lobster and silk next to my skin so perhaps a little more would not go amiss:D)

Please don't trot out the platitudinal arguments against socialism: they are beneath your intelligence quota and that always irritates. Socialism isn't (or doesn't have to be) about making the rich poor: it has only to be about making it far more possible for a larger majority to make it out of poverty without killing themselves in the process of doing it, and making absolutely certain that no-one at all has such extreme wealth that they can have an unreasonable and destructive influence on the lives of those less fortunate than themselves;) It's actually more about ensuring that no-one is OVERLY exploited for anothers benefit, i.e. you don't pay a man a penny for digging up diamonds worth thousands;) Anything else is Daily Wail doctrine clap-trap and I thought you a bit above that:D

I do grant you though that there have been plenty of supposed "lefties" whose extreme silliness has opened the door for the Snails Trail to play that game very effectively.

Generali

moggylover wrote: »

Socialism isn't (or doesn't have to be) about making the rich poor: it has only to be about making it far more possible for a larger majority to make it out of poverty without killing themselves in the process of doing it, and making absolutely certain that no-one at all has such extreme wealth that they can have an unreasonable and destructive influence on the lives of those less fortunate than themselves;)

In that case we both want exactly the same result from politics. All we disagree on is how to get there.

moggylover

Generali wrote: »

In that case we both want exactly the same result from politics. All we disagree on is how to get there.

My goodness! What a thread! I have ended up with a degree of agreement with Generali, and been thanked by Graham Devon:D I think I shall need a little lie down now:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: