Do you think this is priced accurately?

ukcarper

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Which I never denied or took issue with. You have jumped on a post I made in reply to someone who claimed previous sale prices - all previous sale prices - were irrelevant. So no, it wasn't that, as you don't seem in any way to agree with the person the post you replied to was addressing, or to have understood the context in which the post you replied to was made. I am getting rather tired of this now.

You didn't you said house next door sold for £70k then proceeded to base present figures based on that.

ReadingTim

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

According to HPI the average price in Yorkshire was 154K last May and is 155K now, so next door should now be worth, all things being equal, 71K. Now, there may be reasons for next door to be cheap, or this one to be expensive, but it's beyond me how you can say this is not useful info on judging whether this house is fairly priced.

Unless you're being deliberately obtuse, let me explain:

As you can't go back in time, you can only buy what's currently on the market. Even if you include 2 beds and partition it yourself, the cheapest on the market is £88k+. Good luck with getting anything comparable for your £71k.

Finally, your methodology is exactly that used by Zoopla. And we all know how well regarded that is on this board....

shortcrust

I do wonder at people asking the internet about their local house prices. Without local knowledge it's almost impossible to judge.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

ukcarper wrote: »

You didn't you said house next door sold for £70k then proceeded to base present figures based on that.

Because somebody questioned whether any sale a year ago could be relevant. Not because I thought this particular sale was the most important. Context.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

ReadingTim wrote: »

Unless you're being deliberately obtuse, let me explain:

As you can't go back in time, you can only buy what's currently on the market. Even if you include 2 beds and partition it yourself, the cheapest on the market is £88k+. Good luck with getting anything comparable for your £71k.

Finally, your methodology is exactly that used by Zoopla. And we all know how well regarded that is on this board....

What do you mean "My 71K"? I've said clearly several times that there may have been particular reasons that that house was cheap. The OP needs to find those out, and use other comparators. But the prices similar houses sold for in that street a year ago, in a static market, is clearly relevant.

My reply to you was based on your denial on general principles that previous prices are relevant.

I have two of you now complaining at me from diametrically opposite positions, about something I never said. This is really quite absurd.

God, this is hard work.

ReadingTim

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

What do you mean "My 71K"? I've said clearly several times that there may have been particular reasons that that house was cheap. The OP needs to find those out, and use other comparators. But the prices similar houses sold for in that street a year ago, in a static market, is clearly relevant.

My reply to you was based on your denial on general principles that previous prices are relevant.

I have two of you now complaining at me from diametrically opposite positions, about something I never said. This is really quite absurd.

God, this is hard work.

Yours or anyone else's £71k. The last price it sold for is no more relevant than the first price it sold for - which in this case will be in pounds shillings and pence, probably bearing the image of Queen Victoria.

It's only hard work 'cos you're making it so.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

ReadingTim wrote: »

Yours or anyone else's £71k. The last price it sold for is no more relevant than the first price it sold for - which in this case will be in pounds shillings and pence, probably bearing the image of Queen Victoria.

It's only hard work 'cos you're making it so.

You know your post is simply bare assertion, right?

Here's a post with actual points in it so you can see what one looks like.

Of course the price a house has sold for before is relevant in judging its base desirabliity. If a house sold for 100K five years ago when the average house price in the area was 100K, and 125K two years ago when the average house price was £125K, then it is likely to be worth around the average house price in the area now because it's relative desirability will have remained much the same barring any changes to the house. Other variables should also be accounted for. If you can't grasp that simple fact, I don't really care.

ReadingTim

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

You know your post is simply bare assertion, right?

Here's a post with actual points in it so you can see what one looks like.

Of course the price a house has sold for before is relevant in judging its base desirabliity. If a house sold for 100K five years ago when the average house price in the area was 100K, and 125K two years ago when the average house price was £125K, then it is likely to be worth around the average house price in the area now because it's relative desirability will have remained much the same barring any changes to the house. Other variables should also be accounted for. If you can't grasp that simple fact, I don't really care.

Mate, if you don't work for zoopla, you should, 'cos you clearly believe everything they say and think like they think. Your argument is their algorithm. Unfortunately, as you'll read elsewhere on this board, the general advice is, ignore zoopla. This advice also applies to your argument.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

ReadingTim wrote: »

Mate, if you don't work for zoopla, you should, 'cos you clearly believe everything they say and think like they think. Your argument is their algorithm. Unfortunately, as you'll read elsewhere on this board, the general advice is, ignore zoopla. This advice also applies to your argument.

More bare assertion, I see, "mate". "Other people say it's wrong" doesn't count as an argument.

Instead of just saying "No it's wrong" why don't you explain WHY it's is wrong as a contributing factor to estimating the value of a house.

If I were using it as a sole criteria of judgement, that would be flawed, but I am not, am I.

ReadingTim

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Instead of just saying "No it's wrong" why don't you explain WHY it's is wrong as a contributing factor to estimating the value of a house.

If I were using it as a sole criteria of judgement, that would be flawed, but I am not, am I.

OK, it's irrelevant because you can only buy what's on the market now. You can't go back and buy the place next door which sold last summer for x grand any more than you can go back and outbid the vendor of the current place you're looking at. You can only deal with whose selling at the present time, and their expectations on price.

And unfortunately if your estimations of value are significantly adrift of the vendor's expectations, you won't come to a deal, and you ain't gonna buy their house. The idea that the vendor is flying a kite on price but will relent when faced with the 'proof' that prices have only risen x% since he bought, so he's only getting £y is a fanciful as walking into a car dealership and claiming "this only cost £z to make, so I'm only paying cost plus five per cent!" whereupon the dealer rolls over with the words "it's a fair cop gov"


At the end of the day, you can be as scientific as you like to decide what you're willing to pay, but there's so amount of science which is going to determine what the seller's wiling to accept, and with no agreement, there's no deal. You seem to think there's some objective 3rd party referee which arbitrates based on previously sold prices - there isn't. What is last sold at is no more or less relevant than what it first sold at, and totally irrelevant to what it's currently marketed at.