Seller reject survey valuation?

mi-key

fackers_2 said:

lookstraightahead said:

I guess having been in negative equity in the past and having to sell at a loss, so ending up with a huge debt, it made me more wary going forward. I have a small mortgage now and a lot of equity (relatively) which I don't take for granted with the housing market. I don't think I will move again and love my home, but I also don't like the feeling that I can't move if I wanted to (having lived all over the country).

I don't really see my house as "security" (from a financial perspective) I perhaps see it as a bit of a threat.
I see people taking on these huge mortgages at relatively low interest rates and assuming they can stay put for years, buying a 'dream'. They live to the top of their means and then can't afford the rise in interest rates and then perhaps the value of their property decreases. Not all can stay put, they might have to move for work, or divorce etc.

so to me (and it appears I'm in the minority 😂) i will only pay what it's worth to me if it's below or the same value as what I 'think' it would be worth to someone else going forward. 

Thanks for sharing, great insight. Totally agree too, the value for us is living there and enjoying it. 

Have you had any news back on the valuation yet? 

jimbog

lookstraightahead said:

so to me (and it appears I'm in the minority 😂) i will only pay what it's worth to me if it's below or the same value as what I 'think' it would be worth to someone else going forward. 

Why do you feel you are in a minority? It's worth to you is dependent on what it's worth to someone else. Isn't that the norm?

MultiFuelBurner

plumb1_2 said:

I’ve always bought a property as a home not a investment.

I see the first home we bought as the start of a long journey to then aid retirement.

An investment could be one way of looking at it but as we bought our first house at 21 I do expect (historical house prices confirm this) to have a large investment to either draw upon or downsize in retirement if things go to plan.

Sarah1Mitty2

mi-key said:

I agree with a lot of the recent comments on here.  If you are buying a £500K house and having to borrow £450K of that then you probably do want to get the best deal you can and worry about valulations as you have no real wiggle room. 

If you are buying a £500K house and have £400K equity from your last house then you are only really spending £100K and can overpay or pay the asking if you find something that suits what you are looking for without having to worry about lenders valuations or what the price or interest rates are going to do over the short term.

Even better if you are downsizing or moving to a cheaper area, then really you can pay whatever you think it is worth to get the house you want.

That gets harder as the number of buyers drops away.

Sarah1Mitty2

lookstraightahead said:

I guess having been in negative equity in the past and having to sell at a loss, so ending up with a huge debt, it made me more wary going forward. I have a small mortgage now and a lot of equity (relatively) which I don't take for granted with the housing market. I don't think I will move again and love my home, but I also don't like the feeling that I can't move if I wanted to (having lived all over the country).

I don't really see my house as "security" (from a financial perspective) I perhaps see it as a bit of a threat.
I see people taking on these huge mortgages at relatively low interest rates and assuming they can stay put for years, buying a 'dream'. They live to the top of their means and then can't afford the rise in interest rates and then perhaps the value of their property decreases. Not all can stay put, they might have to move for work, or divorce etc.

so to me (and it appears I'm in the minority 😂) i will only pay what it's worth to me if it's below or the same value as what I 'think' it would be worth to someone else going forward. 

Spot on, good advice.

mi-key

Sarah1Mitty2 said:

mi-key said:

I agree with a lot of the recent comments on here.  If you are buying a £500K house and having to borrow £450K of that then you probably do want to get the best deal you can and worry about valulations as you have no real wiggle room. 

If you are buying a £500K house and have £400K equity from your last house then you are only really spending £100K and can overpay or pay the asking if you find something that suits what you are looking for without having to worry about lenders valuations or what the price or interest rates are going to do over the short term.

Even better if you are downsizing or moving to a cheaper area, then really you can pay whatever you think it is worth to get the house you want.

That gets harder as the number of buyers drops away.

Sorry Crashy. your comment has nothing to do with what I posted? What has the number of buyers got to do with anything? 

MobileSaver

lookstraightahead said:

MobileSaver said:

lookstraightahead said:

I also don't like the feeling that I can't move if I wanted to

Why can't you move if you wanted to?

lookstraightahead said:

I don't really see my house as "security" (from a financial perspective) I perhaps see it as a bit of a threat.

I see people taking on these huge mortgages at relatively low interest rates and assuming they can stay put for years, buying a 'dream'. They live to the top of their means and then can't afford the rise in interest rates

I genuinely feel sad that people have such glass-half-empty viewpoints. Yes, everything we do in in life has a risk (life would be pretty pointless and boring if there wasn't) but the reality is that the risk is absolutely tiny.

Even at the height of the most devastating financial crisis in a generation, the worst it ever got was a fraction of one percent of home-owners losing their home and since then rules have been tightened so much that should the same happen again even less will be affected.

It's right to be cautious but no-one should let the fear of worst-case-scenarios stop them from enjoying life.

I don't feel I'm risk-averse in my life. Far from it. I run my own business, I travel, I do all the things that matter to me. In fact, I think seeing property as security is a bit glass half empty.
you don't need to feel sad for me honestly I still will have my house, I just don't rely on it financially. 

I really don't understand your thinking. Everyone has to live somewhere and for most people the cost of housing is their biggest outgoing so financial security surely has to revolve around paying that expense?

If you rent then you have no financial security; you'll be paying rent forever and in the worst case your rent could go up every single year - there are certainly very few if any options to fix your rent for a longer period.

If you instead buy your home then most people who need a mortgage are fixing for at least five years - straight away that's the financial security of knowing exactly how much your cost of housing will be for those five years. And five years later you can do the same again. Even better, as each fixed rate comes to an end you will often end up paying less each month and you are getting closer and closer to owning your home outright resulting in your cost of housing being zero.

Yes of course you should have other pots of money for everyday living and treats but (especially with inflation running at 10%) I can't think of anything else that remotely comes close to paying off a mortgage that eventually means you are guaranteed to one day have either very low or zero housing costs?

What other things did you have in mind that provide better financial security? That's a genuine question as I'm intrigued as to whether I've been missing a trick somewhere!

Sarah1Mitty2

MobileSaver said:

lookstraightahead said:

MobileSaver said:

lookstraightahead said:

I also don't like the feeling that I can't move if I wanted to

Why can't you move if you wanted to?

lookstraightahead said:

I don't really see my house as "security" (from a financial perspective) I perhaps see it as a bit of a threat.

I see people taking on these huge mortgages at relatively low interest rates and assuming they can stay put for years, buying a 'dream'. They live to the top of their means and then can't afford the rise in interest rates

I genuinely feel sad that people have such glass-half-empty viewpoints. Yes, everything we do in in life has a risk (life would be pretty pointless and boring if there wasn't) but the reality is that the risk is absolutely tiny.

Even at the height of the most devastating financial crisis in a generation, the worst it ever got was a fraction of one percent of home-owners losing their home and since then rules have been tightened so much that should the same happen again even less will be affected.

It's right to be cautious but no-one should let the fear of worst-case-scenarios stop them from enjoying life.

I don't feel I'm risk-averse in my life. Far from it. I run my own business, I travel, I do all the things that matter to me. In fact, I think seeing property as security is a bit glass half empty.
you don't need to feel sad for me honestly I still will have my house, I just don't rely on it financially. 

I really don't understand your thinking. Everyone has to live somewhere and for most people the cost of housing is their biggest outgoing so financial security surely has to revolve around paying that expense?

If you rent then you have no financial security; you'll be paying rent forever and in the worst case your rent could go up every single year - there are certainly very few if any options to fix your rent for a longer period.

If you instead buy your home then most people who need a mortgage are fixing for at least five years - straight away that's the financial security of knowing exactly how much your cost of housing will be for those five years. And five years later you can do the same again. Even better, as each fixed rate comes to an end you will often end up paying less each month and you are getting closer and closer to owning your home outright resulting in your cost of housing being zero.

Yes of course you should have other pots of money for everyday living and treats but (especially with inflation running at 10%) I can't think of anything else that remotely comes close to paying off a mortgage that eventually means you are guaranteed to one day have either very low or zero housing costs?

What other things did you have in mind that provide better financial security? That's a genuine question as I'm intrigued as to whether I've been missing a trick somewhere!

Financial security has nothing to do with whether you buy or rent, it is purely about whether you can afford your lifestyle. The poster you are responding to obviously understands the financial insecurity of negative equity so their points are valid I think,  and many people go much longer than five years without rent rises, was that not your experience when you were renting?

MobileSaver

Sarah1Mitty2 said:

MobileSaver said:

lookstraightahead said:

MobileSaver said:

lookstraightahead said:

I also don't like the feeling that I can't move if I wanted to

Why can't you move if you wanted to?

lookstraightahead said:

I don't really see my house as "security" (from a financial perspective) I perhaps see it as a bit of a threat.

I see people taking on these huge mortgages at relatively low interest rates and assuming they can stay put for years, buying a 'dream'. They live to the top of their means and then can't afford the rise in interest rates

I genuinely feel sad that people have such glass-half-empty viewpoints. Yes, everything we do in in life has a risk (life would be pretty pointless and boring if there wasn't) but the reality is that the risk is absolutely tiny.

Even at the height of the most devastating financial crisis in a generation, the worst it ever got was a fraction of one percent of home-owners losing their home and since then rules have been tightened so much that should the same happen again even less will be affected.

It's right to be cautious but no-one should let the fear of worst-case-scenarios stop them from enjoying life.

I don't feel I'm risk-averse in my life. Far from it. I run my own business, I travel, I do all the things that matter to me. In fact, I think seeing property as security is a bit glass half empty.
you don't need to feel sad for me honestly I still will have my house, I just don't rely on it financially. 

I really don't understand your thinking. Everyone has to live somewhere and for most people the cost of housing is their biggest outgoing so financial security surely has to revolve around paying that expense?

If you rent then you have no financial security; you'll be paying rent forever and in the worst case your rent could go up every single year - there are certainly very few if any options to fix your rent for a longer period.

If you instead buy your home then most people who need a mortgage are fixing for at least five years - straight away that's the financial security of knowing exactly how much your cost of housing will be for those five years. And five years later you can do the same again. Even better, as each fixed rate comes to an end you will often end up paying less each month and you are getting closer and closer to owning your home outright resulting in your cost of housing being zero.

Yes of course you should have other pots of money for everyday living and treats but (especially with inflation running at 10%) I can't think of anything else that remotely comes close to paying off a mortgage that eventually means you are guaranteed to one day have either very low or zero housing costs?

What other things did you have in mind that provide better financial security? That's a genuine question as I'm intrigued as to whether I've been missing a trick somewhere!

Financial security has nothing to do with whether you buy or rent, it is purely about whether you can afford your lifestyle.

Er, no, it is not! You are confusing financial security with financial stability.

Financial security is the long term being able to afford retirement and emergencies.

Financial stability is the more immediate being able to afford your monthly outgoings, i.e. your lifestyle.

Sarah1Mitty2 said:

many people go much longer than five years without rent rises

There may well be be a tiny number of outlier exceptions but do you have any evidence that many people go much longer than five years without rent rises? Certainly over the last decade or so, except in London, average rents have increased every single year.

Regardless, how many people go the typical 25 or 30 years of a mortgage without a rent rise? 

Sarah1Mitty2 said:

was that not your experience when you were renting?

No, I only rented for a couple of years.

ArbitraryRandom

jimbog said:

lookstraightahead said:

so to me (and it appears I'm in the minority 😂) i will only pay what it's worth to me if it's below or the same value as what I 'think' it would be worth to someone else going forward. 

Why do you feel you are in a minority? It's worth to you is dependent on what it's worth to someone else. Isn't that the norm?

One example - I currently have a very large garden and because of the layout it's not feasible to parcel it off and sell it to a neighbour. That was actually a detractor for me buying this property as I genuinely don't have time to manage it so have to factor in the cost of a gardener to keep it tidy (or landscaping into a low maintenance form, which would also be a cost). 

Someone else might see a large garden as a significant asset that adds to the value of the property/what they would be willing to pay.