London Has Peaked

wotsthat

Bubble_and_Squeak wrote: »

but this does undermine the validity of the data

Not really. No dataset can be expected to be completely error free (assuming it is an error).

This looks more like having a problem with Land Reg not supporting your claim in the OP rather than a real concern with the quality of the statistics being generated.

Bubble_and_Squeak

wotsthat wrote: »

Not really. No dataset can be expected to be completely error free (assuming it is an error).

This looks more like having a problem with Land Reg not supporting your claim in the OP rather than a real concern with the quality of the statistics being generated.

i can understand your affection of the LR figures.
its the most lagging indicator available so you'll cling onto it as long as possible and defend it at all costs.

MobileSaver

Bubble_and_Squeak wrote: »

but this does undermine the validity of the data

Not to any statistically significant degree it doesn't.

I've posted before about a previous house of mine being recorded at the Land Registry as "price paid £60,000" when I bought out my ex-girlfriend; the house was actually valued at well over £200,000.

As I said at the time...

What I did ten years wasn't exceptional then and is probably becoming more prevalent now as more people jointly own their property and then split. This does mean that average house prices based on Land Registry data could actually be higher than gets reported...

Bubble_and_Squeak

MobileSaver wrote: »

Not to any statistically significant degree it doesn't.

I've posted before about a previous house of mine being recorded at the Land Registry as "price paid £60,000" when I bought out my ex-girlfriend; the house was actually valued at well over £200,000.

As I said at the time...

thanks for that.
it explains a few entries which some posters here have used as evidence of rising prices.
what could possibly account for a flat in walthamstow selling for £165,000 then £1,000,000 less than a month later, though?
a tax dodge or money laundering?

dekoder

danothy wrote: »

You have demonstrated a marked lack of understanding regarding the meaning of the figures you are pontificating about. It's no wonder your being derided. It's clear to me that you are suffering from confirmation bias on this topic, what's not clear to me is what is motivating the cognitive position you seek to defend.

The motive is quite clear. He wants to buy a property in London so is interested in prices dropping/creating hysteria that prices are dropping/convincing himself that prices are dropping.

wotsthat

Bubble_and_Squeak wrote: »

it explains a few entries which some posters here have used as evidence of rising prices.

So anything going up in price is now an error and/ or BOMAD?

Bubble_and_Squeak wrote: »

what could possibly account for a flat in walthamstow selling for £165,000 then £1,000,000 less than a month later, though?
a tax dodge or money laundering?

Seems unlikely to be correct but why not email Land Reg if you're losing sleep about it?

Bubble_and_Squeak

ah, how i wish i had bought in april...

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-32467302.html

...i could have handed the vendor an extra £20,000...

Crashy_Time

Bubble_and_Squeak wrote: »

ah, how i wish i had bought in april...

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-32467302.html

...i could have handed the vendor an extra £20,000...

Would have been WELL worth it to get on the "ladder", don`t miss a chance to get into more debt than you can afford again!


Maybe someone with their free Wonga money will come along and cheer up the seller of this 100k house?

wotsthat

Bubble_and_Squeak wrote: »

ah, how i wish i had bought in april...

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-32467302.html

...i could have handed the vendor an extra £20,000...

Or handed them £60k less last October.

officeuk

wotsthat wrote: »

Or handed them £60k less last October.

Bargin! I would have offered £120k last year.