advice please - barratts v taylor wimpey

hyposmurf

brit1234 wrote: »

Have a check here:
http://www.nethouseprices.com/

I checked dozens of shared ownership flats in Reading and one possibly two were at a lower price whilst the other 100 or so were registered full price.

The street I live the majority are only showing part of the full market price.Maybe it varies with the area, how they get registered.I think I also remember hearing that if a property is below say 40% it doesnt always show up on land registry.My neighbours property which is around that % share doesnt and she's been there a number of years.Kind of really throws alot of the figures out really.

hyposmurf

thescouselander wrote: »

I recently visited a Barrats development. I have to say I was not impressed. You can forget any of the incentives like part ex - we were told that sort of thing was only available once the roof was on the house.

We were told by Taylor Wimpey to come back to them when we had a buyer for our place.Then they could look to offer incentives.We did and they offered us a 12% reduction.We didnt even negotiate on that figure and likely couldve got more off,but we found a place with another developer in a better location.What I have found with new builds, although they are sometimes smaller than older properties, they have better thermal and sound insulated than older properties.Also the layouts are more cleverly laid out than older houses.
Take for instance a victorian house, the stair tread depths are usually very small, so you end up walking up and down with your feet sideways.The WC is usually located in a odd place like upstairs through a bedroom, and the raised timber floors can be drafty.Parking usualy isn that great either.You do though usually have an open fire in the sitting room and they do have character.This isnt true for every new build or victorian house, but its swings and roundabouts, depends what you want.

thescouselander

hyposmurf wrote: »

We were told by Taylor Wimpey to come back to them when we had a buyer for our place.Then they could look to offer incentives.We did and they offered us a 12% reduction.We didnt even negotiate on that figure and likely couldve got more off,but we found a place with another developer in a better location.What I have found with new builds, although they are sometimes smaller than older properties, they have better thermal and sound insulated than older properties.Also the layouts are more cleverly laid out than older houses.
Take for instance a victorian house, the stair tread depths are usually very small, so you end up walking up and down with your feet sideways.The WC is usually located in a odd place like upstairs through a bedroom, and the raised timber floors can be drafty.Parking usualy isn that great either.You do though usually have an open fire in the sitting room and they do have character.This isnt true for every new build or victorian house, but its swings and roundabouts, depends what you want.

I live in a fairly new house now - its a David Wilson and to be honest to say the build quality is appalling is being far far too generous. The layout is nothing special and the energy efficiency of the house is probably due more to its diminutive proportions than any materials used in the construction.

I dont really like victorian houses either but there are plenty of styles from other eras that are a much better design.

claire16c

I live in a Barratt home and its much more spacious that a lot of the other houses we looked at that were a similar price. Weve also got lots of built in storage, huge understairs cupboard, and built in cupboards in both double rooms. Its about 30 years old, not a new build though. My parents lived in one about 20 years ago and had no probs with that one either. I do agree old houses tend to be spacious but then they also seem to be drafty too!

i-luv-free-stuff

brit1234 wrote: »

Your better getting an older house, you get more for your money.

I would avoid Wimpey and Barratts, both overpriced, poor quality and small dimensions.

but we want a new house and they are the only ones developing where we want to live so we dont have much other choice really unless we buy an older house which i dont want to have to do up again as i did that with my last 2 houses.

hyposmurf

i-luv-free-stuff wrote: »

but we want a new house and they are the only ones developing where we want to live so we dont have much other choice really unless we buy an older house which i dont want to have to do up again as i did that with my last 2 houses.

Horses for courses really.You will find though that there are people who put out a blanket statement on all new homes, that they are small, poor quality and overpriced.There are + & - points of older/new build properties.
Also where is this line drawn as to what is new build?A house bought once and sold the same year is no longer new build, but is considered new build by most,so would my place which is over five years old.
With new builds youre unlikley to have a problem with asbestos and listed building consent.

i-luv-free-stuff

hyposmurf wrote: »

Horses for courses really.You will find though that there are people who put out a blanket statement on all new homes, that they are small, poor quality and overpriced.There are + & - points of older/new build properties.
Also where is this line drawn as to what is new build?A house bought once and sold the same year is no longer new build, but is considered new build by most,so would my place which is over five years old.
With new builds youre unlikley to have a problem with asbestos and listed building consent.

yes i seems its true. where as i would never buy a house that need needs doing up (as ive done it before) but some people swear buy it.
i suppose its you cant please all of the people all the time sort of thing