Houses for just £1

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

More than 600 people have applied to buy rundown homes in Stoke-on-Trent for £1 each, the city council has said.

Thirty five derelict homes, mainly two-bedroom terraced properties, will initially be sold off in the Cobridge area, with a further 89 to follow.

Under the £3m project, the local authority is offering loans of up to £30,000 to help complete essential repairs on the houses.

Potential buyers have until 21 May to register their interest.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council said the initial 35 homes would be randomly allocated to the successful candidates.

Those already living in the city will be given priority.

'Community spirit'
In return for buying the properties, people will be required to renovate them and bring them back into use.

They will also have to commit to living in the homes for at least five years.

Councillor Janine Bridges, responsible for housing, said the scheme would "see a rundown area of the city transformed".

"The project will not only benefit the residents who are currently living next door to properties that have been vacant for some time, it will also give families moving into the homes the chance to take their first step on the property ladder," she added.

The council hopes to "build a community spirit" in the area and create "thriving neighbourhoods".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-22247663

A very good thing in my opinion.

Derelict homes are of no use to anybody, and by offering loans for the owners to do the refurbishment themselves, the council can probably put these back into use far more cheaply than if they had to pay for a full refit at council expense.

Plus the area will benefit from owner occupiers who care about the properties and neighbourhood, rather than council tenants who, in all likelihood, wouldn't.

It would be good to see more of these schemes in the areas where the surplus/derelict homes exist.

The only problem being, there is rarely much in the way of employment in those areas, which is why the homes are surplus to requirements (and effectively valueless in their current state, hence the loans to refurbish being required) to begin with.

System

Way overpriced. Deluded vendors. I'll wait til they are 50p.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Way overpriced. Deluded vendors. I'll wait til they are 50p.

:rotfl:

There are parts of the UK where supply of housing far exceeds demand.

And in those areas, houses are dirt cheap. Far below replacement cost to build new ones.

It's always, in every case, all about supply and demand.

There is nothing else.

DervProf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

:rotfl:
It's always, in every case, all about supply and demand.

There is nothing else.

There is something(s) else.

The houses you mention in this thread are priced at £1. They may or may not sell at that price (my guess is that they will). If they sell at £1, you are suggesting that the £1 price was due only to "supply and demand".

Well, Let's say that the asking price was £100 instead. It's just as likely they'll sell, but for £99 more. Was the extra £99 gained from "supply and demand", or was it simply that the vendor increased the asking price ?

Hamish, please help me understand !

The_White_Horse

it depends on your definition of demand. if you mean demand from those with the means to pay, then yes. however, there will be plenty of demand for a £500k house, that might be priced at £400k - but only a few with the means to pay for it. therefore, the demand that matters is only the demand of those with ability to pay.

Hence the availability of mortgages will alter the demand (and probably the supply) dramatically. So, yes, demand counts, but there are many factors included within "demand".

ruggedtoast

If this is the same as other schemes like this I have seen, then the nominal £1 is accompanied by a contractual obligation to perform tens of thousands of pounds worth of renovations within a certain time scale.

If these aren't carried out you either lose the house completely, or receive a bill from the council for the works to be done, I forget which, but I believe the council front a loan.

The schemes also aren't open to landlords, which is about the only good thing in yet another chapter in the UK's bafflingly moronic, piece-meal attempts to provide affordable housing by doing absolutely every conceivable thing other than the government just building some.

System

It might be a bargain, it might just be a very silly way of wasting £30,000.

If the derelict houses are all adjacent, eg in one street, then I can imagine that the influx of enthusiastic new owners, all sharing a common drive to create nice homes, will generate community spirit which might indeed lead to urban renewal.

But if the houses are simply the worst and unsaleable examples of dereliction, isolated between other slightly run-down houses, then it would be a pointless exercise.

Mallotum_X

The reality is these are not £1 homes, they come with quite a big liability attached. However it is a good way to get renovation moving. I recall a similar scheme in Newcastle (i think) a few years back.

But as mentioned by Hamish there are employment issues in many of these areas, which also needs to be tackled.

ruggedtoast

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

It might be a bargain, it might just be a very silly way of wasting £30,000.

If the derelict houses are all adjacent, eg in one street, then I can imagine that the influx of enthusiastic new owners, all sharing a common drive to create nice homes, will generate community spirit which might indeed lead to urban renewal.

But if the houses are simply the worst and unsaleable examples of dereliction, isolated between other slightly run-down houses, then it would be a pointless exercise.

Exactly. I wouldn't touch this with a pole, you have no idea what the street will end up like and no way to back out of the renovations if its obviously going to turn into a dog.

On reflection its ironic that landlords arent allowed to buy them as this is about the only group that could make this a going concern.

Kennyboy66

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

It might be a bargain, it might just be a very silly way of wasting £30,000.

If the derelict houses are all adjacent, eg in one street, then I can imagine that the influx of enthusiastic new owners, all sharing a common drive to create nice homes, will generate community spirit which might indeed lead to urban renewal.

But if the houses are simply the worst and unsaleable examples of dereliction, isolated between other slightly run-down houses, then it would be a pointless exercise.

They are all in the same street.

In fact, almost all of these schemes (one in Liverpool) have been previous ones in Newcastle involve the sale of discreet streets.

It would clearly be madness to do this picking 40 houses across 40 streets.

Kennyboy66

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Exactly. I wouldn't touch this with a pole, you have no idea what the street will end up like and no way to back out of the renovations if its obviously going to turn into a dog.

On reflection its ironic that landlords arent allowed to buy them as this is about the only group that could make this a going concern.

The houses that Newcastle sold in the Benwell area in 2000 for a mere 50p sold for up to £145k seven years later (admittedly in 2007 at the height of the boom).

These schemes are brilliant but suffer from the British disease.

1) people sniping "it will never work"
2) people saying "its not fair on me, why can't I have a house for 50p"