AAARGH!!! Surveyor massively downvalues flat

franklee

Mattygroves2 wrote: »

What I think the two valuers were trying to tell you was that the market for that price bracket of flat is limited and the high service charge (which includes things some people won't be prepared to pay for) and the fact that there are students in the area will limit your selling market when the time comes. Nightclubs would also be a stumbling factor for quite a few people - everytime someone tries to get permission for one near our block (ie within 250 metres) there is a definite spurt of resident co operation to put objections in to the planning department. It's nice to have bars and restaurants two streets away (so easy walking distance) but not in the same street or visible from your flat.

I think so many city centre flats look and sound great on paper but I would be very wary of the surroundings and check it out thoroughly at night. There was a thread on here recently about the anti-social behaviour from some of the social flats near some nice looking flats in Cambridge near the station. They also had car park thefts and vandalism. Plus they are surrounded on three sides by blocks of student accommodation as well as having one bedroom flats on their top floor let to students. They had problems with students being noisy when smoking outside, buying alcohol in the shop nearby and large noisy football games on the grass area. I realise you expect noise city centre but specific details of the location is everything. I can only guess that clearing up and security patrols etc. will eventually push the service charge up. Also at some point they will be collecting a reserve fund for repairs, not currently reflected in the service charge as the flats are so new.

That said if it was a quiet location, the flat had decent size outside space and you can afford the service charge and to eat out a lot making use of the nearby restaurants etc. it may be a nice way to live say in retirement.

Fraise

Tim_Bisley wrote: »

This is just venting really, but it's just so frustrating...

Mortgage valuation was booked a week after the application went in, so happy days! Until the IFA got an email from Halifax yesterday saying that "in the surveyors opinion" the flat is actually worth £220,000 rather than the £295,000 that has been agreed. Stunned is not the word...

It's a big penthouse flat in the centre of town with lots of outside space, so I'd imagine that there aren't that many comparables around. The estate agents weren't even asked to provide any though, so god knows what the surveyor has based it on. This isn't a flat where the vendor was pushing the price, and it stacks up against the rest of the market - we've been looking for 6 months so we know pretty well what is around.

£220k would put it cheaper than flats half the size, further out of town, without the amenities the building has - gym, pool etc. It just does not make any sense.

We currently still haven't seen the report. I actually called up the surveyors this morning, who wouldn't talk to me!! Apparently they will only speak to the Halifax, although this may be because the IFA put a complaint in pretty much straight away because the valuation was so far out.

EA is putting together comparables to back up the price today. Not much else we can do until we get the report I guess...

Sorry if I'm missing something here, but if the surveyor valued the flat at less than the asking price, surely you, the buyer, would benefit from that? Or is it that you want to pay more for it?

Or maybe the vendor is pushing for the asking price and the bank will only lend you what the surveyor has valued it at?


I'm just curious...:):)

Tim_Bisley

franklee wrote: »

I think so many city centre flats look and sound great on paper but I would be very wary of the surroundings and check it out thoroughly at night.

I realise you expect noise city centre but specific details of the location is everything. I can only guess that clearing up and security patrols etc. will eventually push the service charge up. Also at some point they will be collecting a reserve fund for repairs, not currently reflected in the service charge as the flats are so new.

That said if it was a quiet location, the flat had decent size outside space and you can afford the service charge and to eat out a lot making use of the nearby restaurants etc. it may be a nice way to live say in retirement.

Of course. Our current flat is on the 2nd floor 10 feet away from the tram line, above a pub and directly opposite a nightclub. The new one is about 100 yards away from the nightclub entrance, on the 6th and 7th floor with the bedroom to the rear. It's a quieter road so noise is considerably reduced to what we have now. Obviously there may be noise from neighbours, but that's the same anywhere.

There is already a rising sinking fund reflected in the service charge.

Hang on though - retirement?! Decent outside space = lots of BBQs with friends, and why would I want to wait until I'm retired to live within walking distance of 100 or so restaurants? We've arguably got more living space than a house for a similar price, and not somewhere you'd have to drive to get a paper. It's not for everyone of course, but it's not a pensioner's flat...

Miss.Fortune wrote: »

Exciting times.

Would love to see a link as I live in the area and can only dream of something so posh I like to live vicariously through others.

Weirdly the agent took it off Rightmove on exchange rather than waiting for completion, I suspect because of the price drop.

Fraise wrote: »

Sorry if I'm missing something here, but if the surveyor valued the flat at less than the asking price, surely you, the buyer, would benefit from that? Or is it that you want to pay more for it?

Or maybe the vendor is pushing for the asking price and the bank will only lend you what the surveyor has valued it at?


I'm just curious...:):)

Of course we didn't want to pay more for it!!! At £75k off the agreed price it's game over. The vendor will have worked out what he could afford based on our offer and had an onward purchase. No-one could take that hit. Again, this was just a fantasy price - the surveyor ignored properties that half the size that had completed recently less than a mile away because they were "the other side of town."

I'd have bit his arm off to get the flat at £220k. The initial post was ranting at the fact that the figure he gave wasn't justifiable. At the time we thought we only had one lender available, but we subsequently managed to sort another one out and got a great price.

I appreciate city centre living isn't for everyone, but there have been some interesting responses... We'll have a 1300 sq ft duplex penthouse with an 850sq ft terrace on a quiet road within walking distance of what is now quite a vibrant city centre. We have parking and a gym a lift ride away. We could pay the same and get a detached house and a garden, but the main living areas will be smaller and I'd have to fight through traffic to get to work. Vive la difference...

adhara

shortchanged wrote: »

Well according to many of the property rampers on here you would need nowhere near that amount to maintain a property.
The OP would be paying £80,000 over a 20 year period if they stayed there that long. That would pay for a few new roofs, boilers, double glazing etc. Actually you could probably build a whole new house for that.

Except that's a bad comparison. You're forgetting the cleaning, maintenance and insurance of all the communal areas, and payment for any other employees like a concierge (if you're lucky!) too. And it's still a bad comparison based on like for like. £80K will definitely not cover a new roof for a big block of flats, or cover every single window for double glazing.

That £4K a year pays for all of the everyday costs plus the sinking fund for the new roof or potential double glazing.

It's not a price I would pay, but unless the breakdown of charges suggest otherwise, 4K is value for what you get.

Tim_Bisley

Yeah, it's not something that I want to pay, but you can't avoid it on a flat. As I noted, it's high but not out of line with what is being charged on other developments. The only other one we were interested in had the same charge but no communal facilities other than a lift, no parking and clearly no maintenance was being carried out!!

shortchanged_2

adhara wrote: »

Except that's a bad comparison. You're forgetting the cleaning, maintenance and insurance of all the communal areas, and payment for any other employees like a concierge (if you're lucky!) too. And it's still a bad comparison based on like for like. £80K will definitely not cover a new roof for a big block of flats, or cover every single window for double glazing.

That £4K a year pays for all of the everyday costs plus the sinking fund for the new roof or potential double glazing.

It's not a price I would pay, but unless the breakdown of charges suggest otherwise, 4K is value for what you get.

Yes but you are forgetting that all the other residents are paying a service to cover the cost if a new roof.
My example is stating that if someone owned a house they would be unlikey to need to spend £80000 in 20 years on building maintenence on a house. Baring in mind you still have to pay for your own fixtures and fittings in both types of properties.

Tim_Bisley

shortchanged wrote: »

Yes but you are forgetting that all the other residents are paying a service to cover the cost if a new roof.
My example is stating that if someone owned a house they would be unlikey to need to spend £80000 in 20 years on building maintenence on a house. Baring in mind you still have to pay for your own fixtures and fittings in both types of properties.

But again, what is your point? Flats often come with a service charge. It sounds like this isn't something you agree with or can see the point of, but I'm not sure what is achieved by pointing out how much a £4000 service charge adds up to over 20 years. Thanks for that though.

shortchanged_2

Tim_Bisley wrote: »

But again, what is your point? Flats often come with a service charge. It sounds like this isn't something you agree with or can see the point of, but I'm not sure what is achieved by pointing out how much a £4000 service charge adds up to over 20 years. Thanks for that though.

I won't respond to you any further Tim as you have obviously made your mind up and you just want people to say well done to you.
I was actually responding to adhara's point about justifying a service charge.

Tim_Bisley

shortchanged wrote: »

I won't respond to you any further Tim as you have obviously made your mind up and you just want people to say well done to you.
I was actually responding to adhara's point about justifying a service charge.

Thanks for your valuable contributions.

SternMusik

Tim_Bisley wrote: »

But again, what is your point? Flats often come with a service charge. It sounds like this isn't something you agree with or can see the point of, but I'm not sure what is achieved by pointing out how much a £4000 service charge adds up to over 20 years. Thanks for that though.

Having lived in Nottingham City Centre, I have to say that a) I wouldn't do so again and b) this is an expensive flat. I'd be worried about resale (the market is small for expensive city centre flats in Nottingham) and the service charge.

No-one disagrees with the need for service charges as such (maintenance has to be paid for somehow), but £4k is a lot of money. You could afford membership in a very expensive exclusive gym for a fraction. Also it isn't guaranteed that the service charge will stay at £4k; it could go up. It doesn't appear to me to represent good value for money for the upkeep of a building that you don't even own. How long is your lease by the way? Have you factored the cost of extending it?

Another thing about service charges is that, if you were ever to rent out your property, you would still have to pay the service charge. It could significantly decrease the rental yield.