No viewers at all :(

cattie

It looks a perfectly good house to me and nicely decorated and presented. The only thing that would put me off is the size of the 3rd bedroom as it is a bit tight for use as a bedroom, though I know many people like to use the smallest room as a study.

I don't believe there is anything in your photos that would seriously put off any potential buyers wanting to view and it must just be the market in your area. You need to drop the price to try to attract viewers as you now realise. It seems a good idea to go in under the stamp duty threshold if you can afford to do so to get those ftb's through your door.

Better_Days

DPJames wrote: »

The word that sums it all up is 'realistic'. Don't trust estate agents, they're mercenaries.

I agree that EA valuations are not necessarily realistic. We have had 4 valuations which have varied by £25k. The highest and middle valuations are not attainable. The lowest valuation is much more realistic. However, having researched the market I would be delighted to attain the lowest valuation, but I think I will get £5k - £10k less.

The problem with high valuations by EA's is that they raise the vendor's expectations and affects the price range within which the vendor considers buying. It can be a painful (and lengthy) process letting that go.

puddy

seems a nice house, i cant comment on price as im sure others will do all the research

same old same old with regards to the pictures, they are too dark, plus not enough of them. where are the other bedrooms?

yes of course you can make some tweaks like moving furniture or putting out hanging baskets but on a house that looks so clean, neat and tidy it must be price, theres nothing offensive in the pictures.

FireWyrm

Davesnave wrote: »

I agreed with your analysis up to here, but now your own agenda is starting to show.

The OP has been gracious enough to accept people's comments and admits not doing their homework, so there's no need to rub their nose in it.

You also have no knowledge of their ability to trade up. People have all kinds of reasons for wanting to move.

"A house is a home." What's that supposed to mean?

All other things being equal, I would be unlikely to view this house, because the aspect & slope of the garden would put me on show to so many windows every time I stepped into my private space. For that reason, I'd look at changing the garden photo.

What I meant was that historically, people chose a house and then stuck with it, for life, or nearly so. Until the late 90s and early 00s, normal people didn't aspire to buy a house believing that it would always appreciate in price which they could then realise in order to trade up to a bigger one. Indeed, we all now know that rampant property speculation was what ultimately led to the collapse in the first place. Essentially, a whole generation of buyers and sellers have 'grown up' watching such programs as homes under the hammer etc and many ordinary people are now deeply disapointed that their home is no longer making them easy money. The bottom line is that if you are lucky enough through hard work to have managed to secure a house in a decent area, with a mortgage you can comfortably service, there is no need to move. I know people move around the country for work but ultimately, we are a small island, more than half the population lives in the south and nowhere is more than a hundred miles from a decent sized city where work can be found. It's cheaper to stay in that house, accept the fact that it will never 'make money' for you but does serve it's purpose well, as a place to live and raise a family.

Davesnave

FireWyrm wrote: »

Until the late 90s and early 00s, normal people didn't aspire to buy a house believing that it would always appreciate in price which they could then realise in order to trade up to a bigger one. .

As I said, I think you have an agenda and, unfortunately, it made your comments to the OP seem rather harsh. I realise that you did not mean to cause any offence.

However, your observations are not correct, as the first real surges in property prices happened in the mid 1970s, long before any of the stuff you mention. I know; they scared the hell out of me!

I bought my first house in 1977 for just over £9k and sold it exactly 10 years later for £59k, not to realise a profit, but to buy somewhere with play space for my kids and a proper garden for us.

People's lives change. Stuff happens. I have now owned three houses, but that's still less than half the number my parents owned, beginning in 1945. Clearly, by your standards I came from a very abnormal and dysfunctional family!:rotfl:

Waterlily24

Davesnave wrote: »

As I said, I think you have an agenda and, unfortunately, it made your comments to the OP seem rather harsh. I realise that you did not mean to cause any offence.

However, your observations are not correct, as the first real surges in property prices happened in the mid 1970s, long before any of the stuff you mention. I know; they scared the hell out of me!

I bought my first house in 1977 for just over £9k and sold it exactly 10 years later for £59k, not to realise a profit, but to buy somewhere with play space for my kids and a proper garden for us.

People's lives change. Stuff happens. I have now owned three houses, but that's still less than half the number my parents owned, beginning in 1945. Clearly, by your standards I came from a very abnormal and dysfunctional family!:rotfl:

Very true, we bought our first house in 1968 for £5,900 and sold it in 1973/74 for £16,500. We bought then for about £14,600 and sold in 84/85 for about £68,000.

pmlindyloo

I think it is a lovely house - nowhere's perfect so there's always compromises to be made.

The rooms aren't a bad size - seen a lot smaller - so the general opinion seems to be the price.

Just a thought. When I first looked at the pictures I couldn't see anywhere to eat but looking at the floor plan I see there might be space in the kitchen and it is classed as a kitchen/diner. Might be worth while sticking up a photo if you have a table in there or showing the space for one or mentioning - room for table in the blurb. Just a thought.

People are usually flicking through houses on Rightmove and don't always look at the floor plan if the photos don't interest them. Hope you don't mind my mentioning it - not fun having your home pulled to pieces!

Slinky

I too was going to mention the lack of photo of the kitchen part.

The garden slope with all those views of windows in the background would put me off a bit. I'd suggest trying a view of the house from the bottom of the garden.

mikey_bach

thanks for all the comments and suggestions.
The area the house is in is stamp duty excempt so no problem there.
We do intend to have the pictures retaken to see if this will help.
But have been to see a new build today and are hoping to part exchange it for a four bed.....

GDB2222

mikey_bach wrote: »

thanks for all the comments and suggestions.
The area the house is in is stamp duty excempt so no problem there.
We do intend to have the pictures retaken to see if this will help.
But have been to see a new build today and are hoping to part exchange it for a four bed.....

When you part exchange, you usually end up having to pay the full price for the house you buy from the developer, whereas these days you would normally expect to get a very healthy discount if you are not part exchanging. You do need to think about selling your present house for less money on the open market but getting the discount on the new one.

One advantage of part exchanging is that in some cases it seems to magically produce equity in your old house that you can use as the deposit for the new one (even though you end up paying through the nose for the new one).

Good luck, bach.