Energy Price Guarantee No Longer 2 years just 6 months at current level

markin

ariarnia said:

markin said:

It all seems to boil down to the councils not building small 2 beds for the over 65's, That would let the people stuck in overcrowded 2 beds to move up the ladder to 3 beds and new buyers get the 2 bed starter homes cheaper.

The 2 bed and 3 bed price difference is often too close, Depending on the area off course. 50K can easily get swallowed up in moving costs and renovation and the elderly don't want to do the messy work.

there's not any dedicated 'retirement houses or flats' for the over 65 in this immediate area but we did have a look at some just a bit further out for the mil. the choice seemed to be either really tiny flats without even a proper kitchen (and one of her real pleasures is cooking and baking for people) or really expensive properties with on site nurses and wardens. which she just doesn't need and might well even have been more expensive than what she would get for her house once you add in the annual charges.

i don't think its fair to blame the council though. i think everyone would benifit from more housing stock in sensible sizes that was well built and energy efficient. not just for over 65s but for singletons and couples who dont want to start a family or have a big house just because they can aford it. the government really should incentivise house builders the same as we would all benifit if the government had built a couple of nuclear reactors a decade a go. but wishes arent horses unfortunately. any solution to the housing market is not going to be in place in the next 12 months./ 

I mean real houses with kitchens and small gardens with no fees or wardens, house builders will always go for profit and find work arounds for any rules the council try to set, Most over 50s housing seems like a scam, over priced, hard to sell on, high fees and no guest bedroom or 'hobby' room.

brewerdave

markin said:

ariarnia said:

markin said:

It all seems to boil down to the councils not building small 2 beds for the over 65's, That would let the people stuck in overcrowded 2 beds to move up the ladder to 3 beds and new buyers get the 2 bed starter homes cheaper.

The 2 bed and 3 bed price difference is often too close, Depending on the area off course. 50K can easily get swallowed up in moving costs and renovation and the elderly don't want to do the messy work.

there's not any dedicated 'retirement houses or flats' for the over 65 in this immediate area but we did have a look at some just a bit further out for the mil. the choice seemed to be either really tiny flats without even a proper kitchen (and one of her real pleasures is cooking and baking for people) or really expensive properties with on site nurses and wardens. which she just doesn't need and might well even have been more expensive than what she would get for her house once you add in the annual charges.

i don't think its fair to blame the council though. i think everyone would benifit from more housing stock in sensible sizes that was well built and energy efficient. not just for over 65s but for singletons and couples who dont want to start a family or have a big house just because they can aford it. the government really should incentivise house builders the same as we would all benifit if the government had built a couple of nuclear reactors a decade a go. but wishes arent horses unfortunately. any solution to the housing market is not going to be in place in the next 12 months./ 

I mean real houses with kitchens and small gardens with no fees or wardens, house builders will always go for profit and find work arounds for any rules the council try to set, Most over 50s housing seems like a scam, over priced, hard to sell on, high fees and no guest bedroom or 'hobby' room.

Absolutely true ! Taylor Wimpey are building an extended estate on our "village" -shocked to see how many 5 bedroom detached are being planned ,with virtually no gardens , at a cost of £700k+ - and no sign of any real attempt to ensure the local facilities can cope ie roads ,doctor's surgery, shops etc 

BooJewels

brewerdave said:

Absolutely true ! Taylor Wimpey are building an extended estate on our "village" -shocked to see how many 5 bedroom detached are being planned ,with virtually no gardens , at a cost of £700k+ - and no sign of any real attempt to ensure the local facilities can cope ie roads ,doctor's surgery, shops etc 

Is that not what planning permission is for - isn't that examined by the planning department in conjunction with the relevant legislation?

brewerdave

BooJewels said:

brewerdave said:

Absolutely true ! Taylor Wimpey are building an extended estate on our "village" -shocked to see how many 5 bedroom detached are being planned ,with virtually no gardens , at a cost of £700k+ - and no sign of any real attempt to ensure the local facilities can cope ie roads ,doctor's surgery, shops etc 

Is that not what planning permission is for - isn't that examined by the planning department in conjunction with the relevant legislation?

SUPPOSEDLY ,but doesn't stop the developers - the planners seem to nod things thru because National Governments are pressing for more houses.

BooJewels

brewerdave said:

BooJewels said:

brewerdave said:

Absolutely true ! Taylor Wimpey are building an extended estate on our "village" -shocked to see how many 5 bedroom detached are being planned ,with virtually no gardens , at a cost of £700k+ - and no sign of any real attempt to ensure the local facilities can cope ie roads ,doctor's surgery, shops etc 

Is that not what planning permission is for - isn't that examined by the planning department in conjunction with the relevant legislation?

SUPPOSEDLY ,but doesn't stop the developers - the planners seem to nod things thru because National Governments are pressing for more houses.

There's been a story bubbling along on local news over a year or two about houses that didn't honour the planning permission.  They've now been bulldozed. 

[Deleted User]

BooJewels said:

brewerdave said:

Absolutely true ! Taylor Wimpey are building an extended estate on our "village" -shocked to see how many 5 bedroom detached are being planned ,with virtually no gardens , at a cost of £700k+ - and no sign of any real attempt to ensure the local facilities can cope ie roads ,doctor's surgery, shops etc 

Is that not what planning permission is for - isn't that examined by the planning department in conjunction with the relevant legislation?

Sort of - but it is allowable to just pay the council a sum of money that is appropriate to cover the provision of additional services.  Whether the council actually spend that money on the services is another question.

wittynamegoeshere

I've seen my other half's parents half-heartedly looking at houses in estate agents' windows.  They pick up on any negative against their current house (e.g. no dining room, small kitchen), while completely overlooking the advantages over their current one (e.g. safe instead of dangerous wiring, boiler isn't ancient and giving up).

With this sort of psychology there's no chance of them moving - they can't pay anything on top of the value of their current place, so I fail to understand why they think someone else is going to buy theirs at a price that's higher than another that's better in every way.

If everyone thought like this, nobody would ever move.  Our current house has lots of disadvantages over our last one but these were outweighed by the advantages so it was a good decision.

Basically they pretend they want to move but lob obstacles in the way and waste everyone's time.  It's probably an "old" thing.

PennyForThem_2

wittynamegoeshere said:

I've seen my other half's parents half-heartedly looking at houses in estate agents' windows.  They pick up on any negative against their current house (e.g. no dining room, small kitchen), while completely overlooking the advantages over their current one (e.g. safe instead of dangerous wiring, boiler isn't ancient and giving up).

With this sort of psychology there's no chance of them moving - they can't pay anything on top of the value of their current place, so I fail to understand why they think someone else is going to buy theirs at a price that's higher than another that's better in every way.

If everyone thought like this, nobody would ever move.  Our current house has lots of disadvantages over our last one but these were outweighed by the advantages so it was a good decision.

Basically they pretend they want to move but lob obstacles in the way and waste everyone's time.  It's probably an "old" thing.

I am 70+.  I live in a 4 bed house - double glazed, wall insulated since 1990's, loft insulated.  I live 3 miles from town centre overlooking a Council controlled lake and park. What is not to like?  I don't want to downsize - it would cost me to go to a possibly better 'intstagram' designed house from my own.  Where are the incentives for me to give up my home?

Yes - IHT.  As property rises so does this risk.  At the moment although the 'design - afa surface appeal' is not great and an 1990 ambiance indoors, the structure is fine - cavity wall insulation,new roof, loft conversion, soon solar panels, recently painted, double glazing.  I would expect any buyer to update.....

I need a substantial incentive to move, tbh.

deano2099

PennyForThem_2 said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

I've seen my other half's parents half-heartedly looking at houses in estate agents' windows.  They pick up on any negative against their current house (e.g. no dining room, small kitchen), while completely overlooking the advantages over their current one (e.g. safe instead of dangerous wiring, boiler isn't ancient and giving up).

With this sort of psychology there's no chance of them moving - they can't pay anything on top of the value of their current place, so I fail to understand why they think someone else is going to buy theirs at a price that's higher than another that's better in every way.

If everyone thought like this, nobody would ever move.  Our current house has lots of disadvantages over our last one but these were outweighed by the advantages so it was a good decision.

Basically they pretend they want to move but lob obstacles in the way and waste everyone's time.  It's probably an "old" thing.

I am 70+.  I live in a 4 bed house - double glazed, wall insulated since 1990's, loft insulated.  I live 3 miles from town centre overlooking a Council controlled lake and park. What is not to like?  I don't want to downsize - it would cost me to go to a possibly better 'intstagram' designed house from my own.  Where are the incentives for me to give up my home?

Yes - IHT.  As property rises so does this risk.  At the moment although the 'design - afa surface appeal' is not great and an 1990 ambiance indoors, the structure is fine - cavity wall insulation,new roof, loft conversion, soon solar panels, recently painted, double glazing.  I would expect any buyer to update.....

I need a substantial incentive to move, tbh.

How about "soaring energy prices" ?

EssexHebridean

wittynamegoeshere said:

I've seen my other half's parents half-heartedly looking at houses in estate agents' windows.  They pick up on any negative against their current house (e.g. no dining room, small kitchen), while completely overlooking the advantages over their current one (e.g. safe instead of dangerous wiring, boiler isn't ancient and giving up).

With this sort of psychology there's no chance of them moving - they can't pay anything on top of the value of their current place, so I fail to understand why they think someone else is going to buy theirs at a price that's higher than another that's better in every way.

If everyone thought like this, nobody would ever move.  Our current house has lots of disadvantages over our last one but these were outweighed by the advantages so it was a good decision.

Basically they pretend they want to move but lob obstacles in the way and waste everyone's time.  It's probably an "old" thing.

It's subjective though - to YOU the advantages outweighed the disadvantages - had they not then obviously you wouldn't have moved. To someone else, the disadvantages might well have come out on top - because their priorities are different to yours. For a young couple with a couple of approaching-school-age children, the schools in the local area will very likely come top-of-the-pops on a wishlist, well ahead of almost anything else. To a single professional with an active social life, a studio flat in a trendy development with a gym and communal areas might be what they are looking for. For a retired couple somewhere that is on one level with options for adaption as time goes on would perhaps tick the boxes. Those differences don't mean any of those people's priorities are wrong, but it's perfectly possible that not a single one of those sets of "desirable assets" to a property will be anything that you, or indeed I, would give a flying doodah about. (My only interest in local schools for example is not being so close to one that the noise at breaktimes becomes an annoyance!) 

People have different lifestyles - one person may well never use a dining room, want a small kitchen that is easy to keep clean as they do relatively little cooking beyond "ping cuisine" so effectively only need to have space for a decent microwave with any oven being only used occasionally if at all. Someone else might value "family time" for meals, being able to host friends or family for - for example - a big family roast, or everyone being together at Christmas and so the dining rom and the larger kitchen is, for them a higher priority. 

Maybe your in-laws have been left feeling that they "should" want to move, but actually, they really don't? They do after all have the agency to make such decisions for themselves! 

deano2099 said:

PennyForThem_2 said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

I've seen my other half's parents half-heartedly looking at houses in estate agents' windows.  They pick up on any negative against their current house (e.g. no dining room, small kitchen), while completely overlooking the advantages over their current one (e.g. safe instead of dangerous wiring, boiler isn't ancient and giving up).

With this sort of psychology there's no chance of them moving - they can't pay anything on top of the value of their current place, so I fail to understand why they think someone else is going to buy theirs at a price that's higher than another that's better in every way.

If everyone thought like this, nobody would ever move.  Our current house has lots of disadvantages over our last one but these were outweighed by the advantages so it was a good decision.

Basically they pretend they want to move but lob obstacles in the way and waste everyone's time.  It's probably an "old" thing.

I am 70+.  I live in a 4 bed house - double glazed, wall insulated since 1990's, loft insulated.  I live 3 miles from town centre overlooking a Council controlled lake and park. What is not to like?  I don't want to downsize - it would cost me to go to a possibly better 'intstagram' designed house from my own.  Where are the incentives for me to give up my home?

Yes - IHT.  As property rises so does this risk.  At the moment although the 'design - afa surface appeal' is not great and an 1990 ambiance indoors, the structure is fine - cavity wall insulation,new roof, loft conversion, soon solar panels, recently painted, double glazing.  I would expect any buyer to update.....

I need a substantial incentive to move, tbh.

How about "soaring energy prices" ?

That's only an incentive if the ability to pay the "soaring" costs is an issue. And even then, it's often not as simple as "just move, then" - something which has been repeatedly covered earlier in the thread.