Buying House! Dilemma on the area. Please advise

sillyhilly

TornSoldier wrote: »

Asked the EA clarity and plan forward on the valuation and he has come back with following words

In regards to the survey you had done, I am shocked that someone has advised you to have a full building survey on a property of that age, these are only required for properties that are over 100 years old. Up to that date of property, the only survey that one would need would be a Homebuyer Survey. The Full Building Survey v Homebuyer Survey is a matter of personal preference, so I would disregard this first paragraph.

Naturally if you have paid £1000 for a survey, the surveyor is always going to find something wrong with the property Load of rubbish but of course, do send me a copy of the report once you receive it and I can discuss the findings with my client, although as you can appreciate, there has already been a £20,000 reduction on the asking price and he has agreed for you to rent the property for the next two months at a discounted rate to help you out as you are soon to be homeless.

In regards to the value of the property, I have nearly 20 years’ experience in valuing property and can say that in my career, I have only ever had a handful of properties down valued in this time and all of them being individual properties, rather than standard four bedroom detached homes. Again, a total load of guff. How do you know if an EA is lying? (Insert funny quip here)

Lastly, in EA analysis, they have taken 1mile radius and 3 years of sales history to estimate the price while the surveyor has used a radius of 500mts (0.3miles) . Am I being too hung up or the building survey report is indeed inflated? A colleague of mine suggested to get it done as FTB for peace of mind. I would wait for the mortgage valuation in first instance, and then you can decide what to do - ultimately you then have two entirely independent valuations as opposed to an EA's.

Remember, the EA has a vested interest in getting that house sold for as much money as possible for two reasons: 1) he is working for the seller and 2) he get's a juicy commission cheque out of it. I would always trust the mortgage and RICS survey more than the EA. Of course, this may be entirely moot depending on the mortgage valuation.

Hopefully the formatting is all OK!

TornSoldier

Thanks mate! I wrote back to him and he has come down from the tree. I have also agreed to wait for the lender's evaluation.

TornSoldier

Mortgage evaluation came to the same price it seems. Not sure if it was higher (I do not think there is a way to know, is there?). After multiple trips and talking to neighbors, the area is deemed ok...so moving ahead.

rococomaiden

TornSoldier wrote: »

Mortgage evaluation came to the same price it seems. Not sure if it was higher (I do not think there is a way to know, is there?). After multiple trips and talking to neighbors, the area is deemed ok...so moving ahead.

FYI I visited an ex's family in Hesters Way a few times; at the time I didn't know about it's reputation but it seemed perfectly fine?

I think "rough" by Chetenham's standards is not that bad

My only concern would be that house prices are less likely to rise if an area has a bad reputation.

Hectors_House

Deleted_User wrote: »

Agree with Sachs, what is rough to some people isn't necessarily rough to others.

I think people also get hung up a lot on past reputations. As houses have got more expensive over the years i think more and more 'normal' people have bought up in what were previously known to be rough areas because houses were cheaper, which eventually creates more of a social balance.

There will always be people though that will never be able to change their opinion on an area.

Yes I’ve seen this in Netherfield, Nottingham where I bought.

The area had a very bad reputation but then the local council started spending money and cracking down on the problem families.

People like me saw a lot of solid Victorian housing stock that had survived (due to previous lack of interest in the area) and a fantastic public transport service (two train stations and plenty of buses) and we’ve even got a butcher!

And yet it is listed as having a high volume of unemployed.

All my neighbours work. Some run their own businesses.

Yalpsmol

Where do you live currently? Firstly its next to but not in the area which is classed as deprived. Secondly its quite relative. There is a suprising amount of deprivation and child poverty in Cheltenham. From working in St Pauls for example I could say there is a problem with drug use, etc (from number of people on methadone scripts). But its hardly St Pauls (Bristol) and its better than somewhere like Matson (I think anyway) in Glos. If you are used to living somewhere "a bit rough" no big deal. If youre unsure I would try and spend time around the area at different times of day to see what its like. You may look a bit odd skulking around but hey ho.
And the location should be reflected by the price. You can buy pretty cheap (nice) housing in comparable places Glos way.

Jitter

I live not far away and I have customers all over the Cheltenham area so I'll chip in.

As a car owner If I had the choice of buying a house in Rowanfield or the more "desirable" areas of say Leckhampton/Charlton Kings (unless you can afford a place with off road parking) I would personally go for Rowanfield.

You may have problems with anti social behaviour in Rowanfield, but the inconveniance of lack of parking, narrow roads causing problems access for delivery vehicles and resulting in likely damage to your vehicle is a certainty in areas such as Leckhampton/CK.

My first house was in an "undesirable" area of Gloucester, we were the only couple both going to work in our row of houses, but the retired/unemployed neighbours were really friendly and the fact that there were always people around during the day meant we never had any problems.