What would put you off a house...?

lovehols

I shouldn't be thinking of things that put me off as we complete on our dream home.tomorrow :money: but almost three years of searching, I was reflecting on other things we discovered that we hated, aside from some of the obvious things that I and others have mentioned already:

- New builds, new build family 'executive' homes (whatever that means!)
- Close proximity to schools (we don't have kids, nor do we want kids)
- Overlooked, no privacy
- Signs of damp
- Dog smells

Oh, did I mention our first job on completion is to rip up dog mess stained carpet :eek:

Crashy_Time

buggy_boy wrote: »

Or there was a huge banking crash that threatened to cause decades of depression and high unemployment so the various powers used the tools available to them to avoid this.... House prices not crashing was a consequence not part of the plan, hence why they put in place HTB and the taxation of landlords to try and help FTB's

Or you know it could be your conspiracy theory, it was all a huge plan to screw you over as the world revolves around you....

As usual you have it the wrong way round, the banking crash was a consequence of dodgy lending (much of it into property) which politicians and bankers (and the media) encouraged, it boosted lending and hid the lack of wage rises as people thought their house was a lottery win. HTB and landlord tax were years apart, one was to help prevent the banks balance sheets going pop, along with a few major developers, (of course rock bottom interest rates were the main tool, along with QE) the other is in response to the changing voter sentiment towards property prices and the BTL mania, but yes you are right, none of it was done to protect mortgage debtors as a first priority, they just got sheltered as the bankers tried to save their system, and this time around what is needed to keep the system going (higher interest rates) won`t make a good shelter.


Anyway, back on topic, what would put me off a house just now is rising interest rates

hammy1988

We went to view a house that we had always liked the sound of and the particular estate. The day we went there I pulled into the road to have a boy racer car pull up aggressively at the side and yell at me to move over, this proceeded into a full scale road rage argument. Needless to say, we told the owner that we wouldn't waste his time as his neighbours made our mind up for us. We never even got as far as seeing the house LOL

buggy_boy

Crashy_Time wrote: »

As usual you have it the wrong way round, the banking crash was a consequence of dodgy lending (much of it into property) which politicians and bankers (and the media) encouraged, it boosted lending and hid the lack of wage rises as people thought their house was a lottery win. HTB and landlord tax were years apart, one was to help prevent the banks balance sheets going pop, along with a few major developers, (of course rock bottom interest rates were the main tool, along with QE) the other is in response to the changing voter sentiment towards property prices and the BTL mania, but yes you are right, none of it was done to protect mortgage debtors as a first priority, they just got sheltered as the bankers tried to save their system, and this time around what is needed to keep the system going (higher interest rates) won`t make a good shelter.


Anyway, back on topic, what would put me off a house just now is rising interest rates

Your again ignoring facts, it was not so much about property, it was more to do with the risk rating used, they would package up sub-prime mortgages and as the first investor to get paid they would say it was an extremely safe investment.... Problem was the people that had the loans should never have got them and usually eventually all the loans would default, so what was sold as a safe investment really wasnt.

I think your straying into conspiracy with saying politicians and media encouraged it... Politicians and the media didnt really cotton on to what was going on and hind sight is a wonderful thing, yes they should have been better regulated. Did the bankers know what was going on? of course they did, did they care? Hell no they were getting big commissions. But remember this was mainly in America, yes we had some dodgy lending 105% mortgages but not to the scale of the states where they were giving anyone a mortgage because they had so many houses to sell, just like in Ireland... In both these instances you ended up with ghost estates where nobody lived, we didn't have that as we could not build the same as Ireland or the US and we had a lot more demand, thats why even when US and Ireland house prices crashed (Note even with the same government intervention) ours did not...

HTB was a recognition that the government staved off a depression that would have caused a crash in the housing market which has made it harder for the young to get on the housing ladder, hence also the no SDLT for first time buyers. If the landlord taxation was about saving banks books then a rule about having a minimum of say 50% LTV and having to be on repayment mortgage if you dont have that minimum would have been more effective, adding taxation would make it more likely for those loans to default as landlords are going to make a loss where they were making a gain, it was to balance the playing field, I won't go into it but as a landlord I fully understand why they have done it and it has nothing to do with house prices, we have not seen house prices crash as some predicted because of the lack of investment by BTL...

Low interest rates and QE was to avoid a prolonged depression and the resulting high unemployment like the 1930's, house prices not crashing and people not being chucked out, yeah thats a political win... You blame low interest rates and QE but without them likely the UK and world would look a lot darker place..

Remember the government has a huge debt, As interest rates rise the cost of that debt will rise, they have skin in the game so to speak.


I think the important thing to think about is how long you will stay in the property, if there is no way you will move from the area and will stay in the property for 10+ years and you are sure you can afford the mortgage even if rates rise to say 5-6% then buy as renting will cost you far more... If you will not be so settled then because of the cost of buying and selling or being forced to sell at the wrong time because of a job move etc then it is not so clear cut. Property will always rise in the long term but there will be times when property does fall, as long as you can keep it long enough though it will be fine but most importantly dont think of it just as an investment, its your home, sometimes losing money matters less if its the house of your dreams, it can provide you with security but comes with risk..

Crashy_Time

buggy_boy wrote: »

Your again ignoring facts, it was not so much about property, it was more to do with the risk rating used, they would package up sub-prime mortgages and as the first investor to get paid they would say it was an extremely safe investment.... Problem was the people that had the loans should never have got them and usually eventually all the loans would default, so what was sold as a safe investment really wasnt.

I think your straying into conspiracy with saying politicians and media encouraged it... Politicians and the media didnt really cotton on to what was going on and hind sight is a wonderful thing, yes they should have been better regulated. Did the bankers know what was going on? of course they did, did they care? Hell no they were getting big commissions. But remember this was mainly in America, yes we had some dodgy lending 105% mortgages but not to the scale of the states where they were giving anyone a mortgage because they had so many houses to sell, just like in Ireland... In both these instances you ended up with ghost estates where nobody lived, we didn't have that as we could not build the same as Ireland or the US and we had a lot more demand, thats why even when US and Ireland house prices crashed (Note even with the same government intervention) ours did not...

HTB was a recognition that the government staved off a depression that would have caused a crash in the housing market which has made it harder for the young to get on the housing ladder, hence also the no SDLT for first time buyers. If the landlord taxation was about saving banks books then a rule about having a minimum of say 50% LTV and having to be on repayment mortgage if you dont have that minimum would have been more effective, adding taxation would make it more likely for those loans to default as landlords are going to make a loss where they were making a gain, it was to balance the playing field, I won't go into it but as a landlord I fully understand why they have done it and it has nothing to do with house prices, we have not seen house prices crash as some predicted because of the lack of investment by BTL...

Low interest rates and QE was to avoid a prolonged depression and the resulting high unemployment like the 1930's, house prices not crashing and people not being chucked out, yeah thats a political win... You blame low interest rates and QE but without them likely the UK and world would look a lot darker place..

Remember the government has a huge debt, As interest rates rise the cost of that debt will rise, they have skin in the game so to speak.


I think the important thing to think about is how long you will stay in the property, if there is no way you will move from the area and will stay in the property for 10+ years and you are sure you can afford the mortgage even if rates rise to say 5-6% then buy as renting will cost you far more... If you will not be so settled then because of the cost of buying and selling or being forced to sell at the wrong time because of a job move etc then it is not so clear cut. Property will always rise in the long term but there will be times when property does fall, as long as you can keep it long enough though it will be fine but most importantly dont think of it just as an investment, its your home, sometimes losing money matters less if its the house of your dreams, it can provide you with security but comes with risk..

Most people won`t want to lose money on their house, and very few houses are really "Dream Houses" IMO. However you want to think about how we got here, if the things that have been keeping this bubble going change, namely low rates and central bank stimulus, then the market has to change as well.

dunroving

hammy1988 wrote: »

We went to view a house that we had always liked the sound of and the particular estate. The day we went there I pulled into the road to have a boy racer car pull up aggressively at the side and yell at me to move over, this proceeded into a full scale road rage argument. Needless to say, we told the owner that we wouldn't waste his time as his neighbours made our mind up for us. We never even got as far as seeing the house LOL

I had a similar experience when I was scoping areas to move to (not looking at specific houses per se). I had two chavvie experiences within 10 minutes of driving around and although a sample of N=2 doesn't necessarily mean much my gut just said "pass".

Keep_pedalling

Police tape and a recently excavated patio.

steve_jones

Any house sold by Persimmon.

lookstraightahead

Big barking dogs

8Yf13l03r

Depends what puts you off.

You could get stung if the propery has the following...

Prefab construction.
Japanese knot weed in garden (within 10 meteres of structure).
Asbestos containing materials installed - examples online.
Electrics - check if consumer units have RCD protection on most of the circuits - if it does, then you know the circuits are in reasonable condition, a 30+ year old installation with re-wirable fuse board may have issues - especially if you want to upgrade the board to more sensitive circuit breakers.
If house is 70s, check state of plumbing, there was a copper shortage in 70s and crummy plastic pipework fittings was used instead of copper and may be at brink of needing replacing/stripping out if they cannot hold mains pressure, I have seen a few that burst and flood peoples homes.
Where wallpaper is on solid walls, knock the walls if it sounds hollow/detached then the plaster could have blown, then the wallpaper could be the only thing holding the plaster on the wall - common on damp ridden homes.
Boilers over 10 years old will be nearing end of life - not to put you off but maybe negociate money off.
Shared driveways/gardens/access footpaths - Check land registry.
Windowless kitchens and or bathrooms.
Near a landfill site/industrial buildings - smells/pollution/noise etc.
Under a flight path for aircraft - noise.
Grade listed - homes near to me not allowed modern windows fitted and other limitations etc.
Loads to consider.