Phil Spencer

Dan-Dan

Morning All

I was watching this guy last night , i do like his style and personality etc ,but i am confused about what message is supposed to be aimed at sellers (and buyers)

I was udner the impression , most people , looking to spend thousands of pounds , could , and would look past crappy furniture and awful paint colours etc...yes on yesterdays show , he advocates replastering , employing a painter and decorator to do one room , whihc needed 3 coats of gloss on the door frames etc so the cost was £300

New carperts - £550 ....etc etc

Where does it end , before it becomes a false economy to even sell the house?

What is the point in neutrally painting a room , when in all likelihood the new owers will peronalise it anyway?

I dont really understand why you would spend 2k upwards to asthetically tart up a house that any buyer is likely to start from scratch with anyway ?

lessonlearned

Because it helps get a sale.

I too saw that programme . Most people would have looked at that house and run a mile......

Kayalana99

I dont know who PS is but it makes sense to me...yea the buyer will probally personalise it anyway but we brought a house about 2 months ago and its all netrual..we are going to do it up yes but in our own time because its already in decent condition that we didnt have to move in and have the hassle of upgrading it straight away.

Also it makes it look better in the first place so we'd be more likey to be interested in something that pleases the eye then something thats not to our taste...some people can't see past the decorations.

Plus alot of young FTB's will put everything into buying a house...so might not even be able to afford to do anything untill much much later ...

Dan-Dan

lessonlearned wrote: »

Because it helps get a sale.

I too saw that programme . Most people would have looked at that house and run a mile......

but if a house is priced correctly in the first place , surley the decor isnt going to stop someone buying it ?
The woman on the TV yesterday you got the impression she didnt really have 2k to spend (if she hadnt of been on the programme!)

for other people thats probably their moving fees

abankerbutnotafatcat

But some buyers can't see beyond the cosmetic and some to do not want to so much as lift a paint brush. Makes sense to maximise your options!

Kayalana99

Dan-Dan wrote: »

but if a house is priced correctly in the first place , surley the decor isnt going to stop someone buying it ?
The woman on the TV yesterday you got the impression she didnt really have 2k to spend (if she hadnt of been on the programme!)

for other people thats probably their moving fees

The fact is were all differnet and all in differnert situations!

It might not stop one buyer who doesnt have the money to spend because they see past the decor & fall in love with the house...and it might stop another buyer who has the money to spend because they think this looks horrible and dont look at the house itself...

But as above says its best to maximise it so both parties would be intersested and youd be more likey to make a sale(and hopefully at a better offer because no direct work needs to be done!)

ca55ie

Yes - as proved by all these programs most people can't see beyond the furniture and decor in a house. They need to be "nudged" into imagining living their life (with their furniture etc) in that house.

Many house viewers over-estimate the cost of minor changes and once they start thinking about needing to change something they become hyper-critical and imagine everything needs to be changed before they move in.:eek:

Also if the purchase price is at the top of their budget they won't have the funds available to start work on the house when they first move in.They just want a house they can move straight in to and change over the years.

If you wanted a project thats what you'd buy.

And as seen very often on this forum some people have very high expectations about what their property is worth and need a dose of reality

seven-day-weekend

I would not buy a house with loads of artex (for example) all over it. I would not buy a house where we had to undo someone else's DIY. Or at least I would not buy it at anywhere near the asking price.

A coat of paint, yes I could see past that and it's no problem to cover up....but some things are major PITA or major expense.

Dan-Dan

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

A coat of paint, yes I could see past that and it's no problem to cover up....but some things are major PITA or major expense.

So whats better for a vendor , pay for this , and hope for a sale , or set the AP realistically and wait to sell that way....?

Kayalana99

Depends how bad it is I guess, demand for the houses in that area etc...if thiers 20 or so houses in a similar price range in your area then yes def do it up and make it as best as possible...etc

You'll have to make your own decision if your in this situation.

lessonlearned

As above - with knobs on.!!!!

Someone may well buy it - eventually. However, you can guarantee they will haggle the vendor into the ground for the imagined costs and sheer nuisance value.

Better to spend a little and get the house into tip top shape and then get a quick sale at a decent price.

Far too many people are total ostriches when it comes to seeing the state that their properties are in.

Some vendors have a downright nerve putting shabby, tatty, down at heel properties on the market and expecting viewers to swoon with delight at their offerings:rotfl:

Then they wonder why their precious property won't sell.

"Oh but my house is wonderful, it's better than anyone elses in our street".

No it isn't.

If it was, then it would sell - simple.

I've been in the position that Phil Spencer is in - only I didn't go on the TV. :rotfl:

I have had to be extremely diplomatic trying to get people to see sense. Most of the time I succeeded but I had my failures.

It was part of my job to evaluate properties for the developer I worked for to see if we could take it in part exchange.

Usually I did ok, but a couple of times I had to refuse to take on someone's house because they were just so pig-headed and would not listen to reason.

It would have cost my employers time and money to get these properties into a marketable condition. No point because it would have cost us money, no made any.

The point to remember is this.

The early bird catches the best and juiciest worms.

The best houses always sell first - especially in a recession.

If the house is below par then it has to be priced extremely competitively in order to shift it.

Better to spend £2k then end up slashing £20K off the price to sell it.

A "project" is an entirely different matter.

People who like projects - and I'm one of them - turn a blind eye to decoration, room layouts, etc We know that we can fix it.

Hideous, filthy flea pits don't worry us;).