Cash buyer beat me to it and I didn’t get any chance to do anything about it?

MobileSaver

David2710 said:

I have spoken often about how unfair and discriminatory the private rented sector is, it's basically free market capitalism gone mad.

I assume you mean unfair to the landlords? I agree it is mad that tenants can stop paying rent but landlords are having to wait up to a year or even longer before they can evict the free-loading lowlife.

David2710 said:

it never passes into law because the Tories always vote the motion down. I'm just saying with a different government the balance of power can be swung in favour of the tenant

Labour were in power for over a decade pre-2010, can you remind me what rent caps they introduced during that period?

David2710 said:

with a different government  ... That's why I say "my house my choice" is not always the case in other parts of the world ... I say that's a good thing

In other parts of the world... posting online that you favour a different government will see you thrown in jail or worse, is that a good thing too?

David2710 said:

One day the housing market will collapse as it did in the early 90's and I predict street parties across the land not seen since VE day.

In the early 90s hundreds of thousands of people had their homes repossessed and were thrown out on the street. Are these street parties for cash-rich people to celebrate cheap properties coming on to the market or are they for the homeless who no longer have a home they can party in?

AdrianC

Mickey666 said:

Perhaps you're too young to remember Blair's three terms of a Labour government followed by Brown's two terms?

Minor point...

Blair served just over two full parliaments (1997 election win to 2001 election win, 2001 election win to 2005 election win, 2005 election win to 2007 mid-parliament resignation), Brown served less than one full term (2007 mid-parliament appointment to 2010 election loss).

At least Brown's reputation has been saved from being one of the worst PMs of the modern era - he's already not even the worst PM of the 21st century.

MaryNB

David2710 said:

Mickey666 said:

jordan3939 said:

Yesterday I put in an offer on a flat and the estate agent informed me someone had gone higher than the asking price. I said was it 5k more? If so I will match and she said it was. I then got a call later saying the seller had accepted his offer as he was a cash buyer. How is this fair??? I was going to offer more if they came back to me but I didn’t get a chance to. Any tips for battling against cash buyers for next time? Thank you.

Why does it have to be fair?  Life isn't isn't fair, so why expect the house-buying process to be fair?  Just be glad that you're even in the position to be able to afford a house - billions of people on the planet don't have that luxury.  Is that 'fair'?

I agree life is cruel but it doesn't have to be unfair. I have spoken often about how unfair and discriminatory the private rented sector is, it's basically free market capitalism gone mad. Reforming the Housing act has been debated ad nauseum in Parliament in regards to capping rents, compulsory purchase orders, long term tenancy's etc., as they do in other parts of Europe, but sadly it never passes into law because the Tories always vote the motion down. I'm just saying with a different government the balance of power can be swung in favour of the tenant and not the money grasping landlord and agent.

In other country's gazumping is strictly forbidden and in parts of the mid-east the punishment is much more severe, so in the end it's all about political choices. That's why I say "my house my choice" is not always the case in other parts of the world. The Housing act and specifically the private rented sector needs root and branch reform and if that means rogue and or amateur landlords leaving the playing field then I say that's a good thing. Maybe then and only then will this government act to build genuinely affordable social housing to rent. One day the housing market will collapse as it did in the early 90's and I predict street parties across the land not seen since VE day. Life's cruel but can be fairer.   

I don't remember the street parties in 2008....

I don't think anybody would argue that the rate at which house prices increase is crazy but there is a difference between reducing the rate of increase (which will only really come with a better supply and/or tougher access to credit) and a total collapse. A total collapse with have a significant impact on any current homeowners if they end up in massive negative equity, not just property investors and EAs.

Hannimal

SpiderLegs said:

Hannimal said:

Thrugelmir said:

Hannimal said:

Deleted_User said:

jordan3939 said:

How is this fair??? 

Because it's the seller's property. Therefore they choose who to sell to.

I mean, it's not fair. It's not fair that some people have enough cash to buy a house and others need a mortgage and some will never even be able to get a mortgage. 

We all have choices as to how we spend the money we earn. Whether we borrow or save.  Generally saving as a habit has been poor in the UK for a very long time.  With a buy now pay culture. 

Well this is rather tone-deaf. Have you seen what the living costs in UK cities are and how those compare with salaries? You would have to have a mad salary to be able to save from normal income to become a cash buyer in most UK cities. Average UK salary is around 30k, so after tax around 22k, each year. Cheapest houses in the city I live in sell for 220k.

Well what you have just done is compared a national average salary with house prices in an above average city.

Nobody with even a modicum of intelligence is going to fall for that reasoning.

Bristol salaries aren't higher than that on average. I think you could do with looking at how living expenses and salaries compare nationally and you'll see that majority of young people will not be able to to become cash buyers. 

Salemicus

AdrianC said:

At least Brown's reputation has been saved from being one of the worst PMs of the modern era - he's already not even the worst PM of the 21st century.

I always think these comparisons are a bit silly. Suppose Brown had got a few more seats in 2010 and clung on for a year or two in ignominious fashion, and suppose May wins a couple fewer in 2017 and has to resign. Then he's seen as the worst and May is a footnote, but it's hard to credit him for doing worse in an election, and punish her for doing better.

They all faced particular times and circumstances, and can only be compared against them.

SpiderLegs

Hannimal said:

SpiderLegs said:

Hannimal said:

Thrugelmir said:

Hannimal said:

Deleted_User said:

jordan3939 said:

How is this fair??? 

Because it's the seller's property. Therefore they choose who to sell to.

I mean, it's not fair. It's not fair that some people have enough cash to buy a house and others need a mortgage and some will never even be able to get a mortgage. 

We all have choices as to how we spend the money we earn. Whether we borrow or save.  Generally saving as a habit has been poor in the UK for a very long time.  With a buy now pay culture. 

Well this is rather tone-deaf. Have you seen what the living costs in UK cities are and how those compare with salaries? You would have to have a mad salary to be able to save from normal income to become a cash buyer in most UK cities. Average UK salary is around 30k, so after tax around 22k, each year. Cheapest houses in the city I live in sell for 220k.

Well what you have just done is compared a national average salary with house prices in an above average city.

Nobody with even a modicum of intelligence is going to fall for that reasoning.

Bristol salaries aren't higher than that on average. I think you could do with looking at how living expenses and salaries compare nationally and you'll see that majority of young people will not be able to to become cash buyers. 

I don’t need to look at anything to see that the majority of young people will not be able to become cash buyers. I suspect even a 6 year old could work that one out.

Batesy1976

David2710 said:

In other country's gazumping is strictly forbidden and in parts of the mid-east the punishment is much more severe, so in the end it's all about political choices. That's why I say "my house my choice" is not always the case in other parts of the world. 

Yes, let's look to the Middle East for guidance on how to craft our laws. The same place that jails unmarried couples for the heinous crime of kissing in public and hands out the death penalty for being gay....

Salemicus

In exactly what part of the Middle East is there a severe punishment for gazumping? Or is this just casual racism?

AdrianC

Salemicus said:

AdrianC said:

At least Brown's reputation has been saved from being one of the worst PMs of the modern era - he's already not even the worst PM of the 21st century.

I always think these comparisons are a bit silly. Suppose Brown had got a few more seats in 2010 and clung on for a year or two in ignominious fashion, and suppose May wins a couple fewer in 2017 and has to resign. Then he's seen as the worst and May is a footnote, but it's hard to credit him for doing worse in an election, and punish her for doing better.

They all faced particular times and circumstances, and can only be compared against them.

So PM reputations are only based on whether they won elections or not?

MaryNB

Mickey666 said:

MaryNB said:

I don't think anybody would argue that the rate at which house prices increase is crazy but there is a difference between reducing the rate of increase (which will only really come with a better supply and/or tougher access to credit) and a total collapse. A total collapse with have a significant impact on any current homeowners if they end up in massive negative equity, not just property investors and EAs.

I find it hard to imagine a mechanism for the 'total collapse' of house prices.   How would it work in practice?  Who would voluntarily sell their house for less than they paid for it?  Wouldn't they simply stay where they are?  Sure, some people are forced to move due to various circumstances, but anyone not forced to move is sort of immune to house prices collapsing if they simply choose not to sell.

As long as they continue to pay their mortgage they continue to have a home and 'negative equity' becomes just a theoretical thing of no consequence.  After all, what's the alternative?  Sell up and rent?  When rent is likely to cost more than the mortgage payments?  It would make no sense. 

What makes sense it to simply stay put, which reduces supply, which puts pressure on demand, which drives the price back up again.  It's a sort of homeostatic mechanism that regulates the market - it's not a conscious thing, it just arises from the normal, sensible decisions that millions of home owners will make.

What happened a lot in Ireland was people in their mid-20s buying 1 or 2 bed starter homes in the boom (being told rent is chucking money down the drain etc) then in their 30s had 2 to 3 kids but couldn't sell because of negative equity. Loads of people lost their jobs or took big pay cuts, couldn't afford their mortgage repayments but couldn't sell it off. It made it difficult to move away to look for work -we had a significant amount of emigration due to unemployment. The inability to sell for some people lasted years beyond the crash. It took my cousin and his wife nearly 8 years to get out of negative equity. When the bought you could get a 100% mortgage (if I recall correctly even 105%) and in some areas in Ireland houses have not returned to 2007 price levels.