Can anyone help re: house price increases please?

TheJP

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

I totally ignore offers over and offer what I can afford. If they don't accept I walk away, leaving the offer on the table.

It's pointless trying to speculate (especially when houses are put on for whatever the vendor fancies) so just offer what you're happy with.

This process gives you an idea in terms of the thought process of a seller. If you aren't going to offer over then look at a different property. This is the equivalent of a tire kicker looking to buy a car that they don't have the funds/wont pay the asking price for. The headers are there for a reason, they highlight who you are dealing with, the value they feel the house is absolute and gives you an idea as to how you structure your offer based on how much you want the house and what you can afford.

Well it's always worked for me. Offers over is made up nonsense in my experience. And buyers know that. 

If the buyer thinks the seller is a tire kicker, though, they don't have to view if they don't want. 

It's a marketing ploy by the estate agent. It's so obvious. And laughable. And the seller misses out if naive buyers don't take a look. 

So do you always pay forecourt price for a secondhand car? What do you think a sales team is for? 

I asked the EA to market my house 2 years ago at £290k OIRO based on comparable (EA wanted to go in lower) but knowing my house was one of the best plots in the area due to the driveway and privacy. To make my onward sale viable i knew i could accept £285k. I had to offers the day after it went live, both at asking. We told each bidder there was even offers on the table and if they would like to submit a best and final offer, It sold for £500 over the next day, as i was happy with that. The EA asked the buyer why they went in straight at asking and not lower, the seller said it was a good price and i wanted the house. 

When i buy a car i research the price and value of the model to see if its worth it, if i feel its way over priced i wont bother looking at it as the seller is unlikely to drop it to what i feel its valued at. If the price had ONO aside it then i know there is room to try and get it to the value i researched. 

When i see offers over and I've seen some comparable house slightly lower i then know the seller is going to be difficult, especially if i have to negotiate further after survey

When I've put a house in the market I always have 10% at least leeway.
when I buy a house I always expect others to have also done that. Of course they have!
When I buy a car I always buy for lower than what they're on the market at.

I don't get this link with a buyer having to pay what the seller needs to buy their onward purchase. That's like me putting my £450000 house on for £1m so that I can buy the house I would really like. 

I do my research as well, but I will go and look at houses that are on the market for more than I'm willing to pay.

As usual you've missed the point by miles.

The terminology that some sellers use can be a great tool in how someone can decide whether they actually offer on a property and for the seller whether that person is serious. 

My house was priced right for the market at top end but this is the point you missed in order to still make my onward sale work i could accept £xxxxk lower than the guide price. The buyer paid over the guide price as they really wanted the house and so did someone else. 

I'm not missing the point at all. Your theory is different from mine. That's ok.

The part in bold is what you missed when you were replying to my thread. You don't get the link between buyer paying for the sellers needs for the onward purchase. Every onward sale relies on the sold price of their property unless they have a lot of savings. In my case my onward sale would still have worked if i accepted a lower offer than what i marketed the house at.

Of course its ok to have difference in opinion on how to market a house but that's not what i was referring to about you missing the point of what i stated in my post.

lookstraightahead

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

I totally ignore offers over and offer what I can afford. If they don't accept I walk away, leaving the offer on the table.

It's pointless trying to speculate (especially when houses are put on for whatever the vendor fancies) so just offer what you're happy with.

This process gives you an idea in terms of the thought process of a seller. If you aren't going to offer over then look at a different property. This is the equivalent of a tire kicker looking to buy a car that they don't have the funds/wont pay the asking price for. The headers are there for a reason, they highlight who you are dealing with, the value they feel the house is absolute and gives you an idea as to how you structure your offer based on how much you want the house and what you can afford.

Well it's always worked for me. Offers over is made up nonsense in my experience. And buyers know that. 

If the buyer thinks the seller is a tire kicker, though, they don't have to view if they don't want. 

It's a marketing ploy by the estate agent. It's so obvious. And laughable. And the seller misses out if naive buyers don't take a look. 

So do you always pay forecourt price for a secondhand car? What do you think a sales team is for? 

I asked the EA to market my house 2 years ago at £290k OIRO based on comparable (EA wanted to go in lower) but knowing my house was one of the best plots in the area due to the driveway and privacy. To make my onward sale viable i knew i could accept £285k. I had to offers the day after it went live, both at asking. We told each bidder there was even offers on the table and if they would like to submit a best and final offer, It sold for £500 over the next day, as i was happy with that. The EA asked the buyer why they went in straight at asking and not lower, the seller said it was a good price and i wanted the house. 

When i buy a car i research the price and value of the model to see if its worth it, if i feel its way over priced i wont bother looking at it as the seller is unlikely to drop it to what i feel its valued at. If the price had ONO aside it then i know there is room to try and get it to the value i researched. 

When i see offers over and I've seen some comparable house slightly lower i then know the seller is going to be difficult, especially if i have to negotiate further after survey

When I've put a house in the market I always have 10% at least leeway.
when I buy a house I always expect others to have also done that. Of course they have!
When I buy a car I always buy for lower than what they're on the market at.

I don't get this link with a buyer having to pay what the seller needs to buy their onward purchase. That's like me putting my £450000 house on for £1m so that I can buy the house I would really like. 

I do my research as well, but I will go and look at houses that are on the market for more than I'm willing to pay.

As usual you've missed the point by miles.

The terminology that some sellers use can be a great tool in how someone can decide whether they actually offer on a property and for the seller whether that person is serious. 

My house was priced right for the market at top end but this is the point you missed in order to still make my onward sale work i could accept £xxxxk lower than the guide price. The buyer paid over the guide price as they really wanted the house and so did someone else. 

I'm not missing the point at all. Your theory is different from mine. That's ok.

The part in bold is what you missed when you were replying to my thread. You don't get the link between buyer paying for the sellers needs for the onward purchase. Every onward sale relies on the sold price of their property unless they have a lot of savings. In my case my onward sale would still have worked if i accepted a lower offer than what i marketed the house at.

Of course its ok to have difference in opinion on how to market a house but that's not what i was referring to about you missing the point of what i stated in my post.

Ok so from your buyer's side, they paid more than what you had marketed it for, and indeed, they paid much more than what you would have accepted. That's just naivety (by them). I'm sure you have a lovely house but it won't be the only one out there. 

Your valuation was based on how much you needed for your onwards purchase and all I'm saying is that I'm willing to walk away rather than pay to fund an onwards purchase by the vendor, especially if I know this is happening. They will have to make a decision to accept my offer and look for something else that's cheaper, or I look for something else.

And the market currently isn't on the vendors side. 

Out of interest, did you negotiate on your onwards purchase? 

youth_leader

I was affected by my first estate agent completely over estimating the price I could achieve for my 'unique' house, and it caused me a great deal of angst and sleepless nights.  Completely changed my future.  Within six months my plans changed from being able to go home to London,  to buying a tiny house/small flat here in the north.  I was very very fortunate this bungalow was within my budget.

As I owned a listed building and had hoped to stay there, I did instruct a surveyor to do a L3 survey for my use.  He recommended £200K needed to be spent on the house, which I couldn't finance.  It is a criminal offence to allow a listed to fall into disrepair, I was scared as the roof/sash windows really were on their last legs. My biggest regret is not paying him to do a valuation, I would have felt better if I'd been armed with this knowledge. My buyer's lender valued the house at £0 pending the damp/timber survey, and as they threw it out as inappropriate and I withdrew from the sale, I never found out the value they'd lend on it.  I realise a house is only worth what a buyer would pay, but I didn't get anything near the price I'd been led to believe I could achieve.  

Sunsaru

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

I totally ignore offers over and offer what I can afford. If they don't accept I walk away, leaving the offer on the table.

It's pointless trying to speculate (especially when houses are put on for whatever the vendor fancies) so just offer what you're happy with.

This process gives you an idea in terms of the thought process of a seller. If you aren't going to offer over then look at a different property. This is the equivalent of a tire kicker looking to buy a car that they don't have the funds/wont pay the asking price for. The headers are there for a reason, they highlight who you are dealing with, the value they feel the house is absolute and gives you an idea as to how you structure your offer based on how much you want the house and what you can afford.

Well it's always worked for me. Offers over is made up nonsense in my experience. And buyers know that. 

If the buyer thinks the seller is a tire kicker, though, they don't have to view if they don't want. 

It's a marketing ploy by the estate agent. It's so obvious. And laughable. And the seller misses out if naive buyers don't take a look. 

So do you always pay forecourt price for a secondhand car? What do you think a sales team is for? 

I asked the EA to market my house 2 years ago at £290k OIRO based on comparable (EA wanted to go in lower) but knowing my house was one of the best plots in the area due to the driveway and privacy. To make my onward sale viable i knew i could accept £285k. I had to offers the day after it went live, both at asking. We told each bidder there was even offers on the table and if they would like to submit a best and final offer, It sold for £500 over the next day, as i was happy with that. The EA asked the buyer why they went in straight at asking and not lower, the seller said it was a good price and i wanted the house. 

When i buy a car i research the price and value of the model to see if its worth it, if i feel its way over priced i wont bother looking at it as the seller is unlikely to drop it to what i feel its valued at. If the price had ONO aside it then i know there is room to try and get it to the value i researched. 

When i see offers over and I've seen some comparable house slightly lower i then know the seller is going to be difficult, especially if i have to negotiate further after survey

When I've put a house in the market I always have 10% at least leeway.
when I buy a house I always expect others to have also done that. Of course they have!
When I buy a car I always buy for lower than what they're on the market at.

I don't get this link with a buyer having to pay what the seller needs to buy their onward purchase. That's like me putting my £450000 house on for £1m so that I can buy the house I would really like. 

I do my research as well, but I will go and look at houses that are on the market for more than I'm willing to pay.

As usual you've missed the point by miles.

The terminology that some sellers use can be a great tool in how someone can decide whether they actually offer on a property and for the seller whether that person is serious. 

My house was priced right for the market at top end but this is the point you missed in order to still make my onward sale work i could accept £xxxxk lower than the guide price. The buyer paid over the guide price as they really wanted the house and so did someone else. 

I'm not missing the point at all. Your theory is different from mine. That's ok.

The part in bold is what you missed when you were replying to my thread. You don't get the link between buyer paying for the sellers needs for the onward purchase. Every onward sale relies on the sold price of their property unless they have a lot of savings. In my case my onward sale would still have worked if i accepted a lower offer than what i marketed the house at.

Of course its ok to have difference in opinion on how to market a house but that's not what i was referring to about you missing the point of what i stated in my post.

Ok so from your buyer's side, they paid more than what you had marketed it for, and indeed, they paid much more than what you would have accepted. That's just naivety (by them). I'm sure you have a lovely house but it won't be the only one out there. 

Your valuation was based on how much you needed for your onwards purchase and all I'm saying is that I'm willing to walk away rather than pay to fund an onwards purchase by the vendor, especially if I know this is happening. They will have to make a decision to accept my offer and look for something else that's cheaper, or I look for something else.

And the market currently isn't on the vendors side. 

Out of interest, did you negotiate on your onwards purchase? 

I don't think the market is on anybody's side tbh.

lookstraightahead

youth_leader said:

I was affected by my first estate agent completely over estimating the price I could achieve for my 'unique' house, and it caused me a great deal of angst and sleepless nights.  Completely changed my future.  Within six months my plans changed from being able to go home to London,  to buying a tiny house/small flat here in the north.  I was very very fortunate this bungalow was within my budget.

As I owned a listed building and had hoped to stay there, I did instruct a surveyor to do a L3 survey for my use.  He recommended £200K needed to be spent on the house, which I couldn't finance.  It is a criminal offence to allow a listed to fall into disrepair, I was scared as the roof/sash windows really were on their last legs. My biggest regret is not paying him to do a valuation, I would have felt better if I'd been armed with this knowledge. My buyer's lender valued the house at £0 pending the damp/timber survey, and as they threw it out as inappropriate and I withdrew from the sale, I never found out the value they'd lend on it.  I realise a house is only worth what a buyer would pay, but I didn't get anything near the price I'd been led to believe I could achieve.  

Thank you for your honesty.

TheJP

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

I totally ignore offers over and offer what I can afford. If they don't accept I walk away, leaving the offer on the table.

It's pointless trying to speculate (especially when houses are put on for whatever the vendor fancies) so just offer what you're happy with.

This process gives you an idea in terms of the thought process of a seller. If you aren't going to offer over then look at a different property. This is the equivalent of a tire kicker looking to buy a car that they don't have the funds/wont pay the asking price for. The headers are there for a reason, they highlight who you are dealing with, the value they feel the house is absolute and gives you an idea as to how you structure your offer based on how much you want the house and what you can afford.

Well it's always worked for me. Offers over is made up nonsense in my experience. And buyers know that. 

If the buyer thinks the seller is a tire kicker, though, they don't have to view if they don't want. 

It's a marketing ploy by the estate agent. It's so obvious. And laughable. And the seller misses out if naive buyers don't take a look. 

So do you always pay forecourt price for a secondhand car? What do you think a sales team is for? 

I asked the EA to market my house 2 years ago at £290k OIRO based on comparable (EA wanted to go in lower) but knowing my house was one of the best plots in the area due to the driveway and privacy. To make my onward sale viable i knew i could accept £285k. I had to offers the day after it went live, both at asking. We told each bidder there was even offers on the table and if they would like to submit a best and final offer, It sold for £500 over the next day, as i was happy with that. The EA asked the buyer why they went in straight at asking and not lower, the seller said it was a good price and i wanted the house. 

When i buy a car i research the price and value of the model to see if its worth it, if i feel its way over priced i wont bother looking at it as the seller is unlikely to drop it to what i feel its valued at. If the price had ONO aside it then i know there is room to try and get it to the value i researched. 

When i see offers over and I've seen some comparable house slightly lower i then know the seller is going to be difficult, especially if i have to negotiate further after survey

When I've put a house in the market I always have 10% at least leeway.
when I buy a house I always expect others to have also done that. Of course they have!
When I buy a car I always buy for lower than what they're on the market at.

I don't get this link with a buyer having to pay what the seller needs to buy their onward purchase. That's like me putting my £450000 house on for £1m so that I can buy the house I would really like. 

I do my research as well, but I will go and look at houses that are on the market for more than I'm willing to pay.

As usual you've missed the point by miles.

The terminology that some sellers use can be a great tool in how someone can decide whether they actually offer on a property and for the seller whether that person is serious. 

My house was priced right for the market at top end but this is the point you missed in order to still make my onward sale work i could accept £xxxxk lower than the guide price. The buyer paid over the guide price as they really wanted the house and so did someone else. 

I'm not missing the point at all. Your theory is different from mine. That's ok.

The part in bold is what you missed when you were replying to my thread. You don't get the link between buyer paying for the sellers needs for the onward purchase. Every onward sale relies on the sold price of their property unless they have a lot of savings. In my case my onward sale would still have worked if i accepted a lower offer than what i marketed the house at.

Of course its ok to have difference in opinion on how to market a house but that's not what i was referring to about you missing the point of what i stated in my post.

Ok so from your buyer's side, they paid more than what you had marketed it for, and indeed, they paid much more than what you would have accepted. That's just naivety (by them). I'm sure you have a lovely house but it won't be the only one out there. 

Your valuation was based on how much you needed for your onwards purchase and all I'm saying is that I'm willing to walk away rather than pay to fund an onwards purchase by the vendor, especially if I know this is happening. They will have to make a decision to accept my offer and look for something else that's cheaper, or I look for something else.

And the market currently isn't on the vendors side. 

Out of interest, did you negotiate on your onwards purchase? 

First of all this was over 2 years ago. I valued the house based on comparable and taking into consideration the prime location of our house in a sought after area not based on the onward house price. The EA wanted to go lower as from what i understand had willing buyers at the lower range, i wanted to test the market. I was right. Again ill say it in capitals for you I COULD HAVE ACCEPTED A LOWER OFFER TO MAKE MY ONWARD PURCHASE STILL WORK. The buyer really liked the house so they paid a little and i mean a little over the guide price.

I bought my onward purchase from a developer for a house that the previous owners did an exchange on. They told me what the developers paid, i did some comparable research and was to negotiate a little, i was also able to get some money off for a new boiler (previous owner said it would be worth doing so). Not sure what me negotiating on my onward purchase has anything to do with what we are talking about.

housebuyer143

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

lookstraightahead said:

mi-key said:

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

I totally ignore offers over and offer what I can afford. If they don't accept I walk away, leaving the offer on the table.

It's pointless trying to speculate (especially when houses are put on for whatever the vendor fancies) so just offer what you're happy with.

This process gives you an idea in terms of the thought process of a seller. If you aren't going to offer over then look at a different property. This is the equivalent of a tire kicker looking to buy a car that they don't have the funds/wont pay the asking price for. The headers are there for a reason, they highlight who you are dealing with, the value they feel the house is absolute and gives you an idea as to how you structure your offer based on how much you want the house and what you can afford.

Well it's always worked for me. Offers over is made up nonsense in my experience. And buyers know that. 

If the buyer thinks the seller is a tire kicker, though, they don't have to view if they don't want. 

It's a marketing ploy by the estate agent. It's so obvious. And laughable. And the seller misses out if naive buyers don't take a look. 

So do you always pay forecourt price for a secondhand car? What do you think a sales team is for? 

A second hand car isn't a very good comparison as it's not going to go up in value if the seller doesn't sell it...

I was responding to someone else who used it as an example 

It's a terrible example for a number of reasons.

1. Regular (not classic) cars depreciate

2. Car "supermarkets" are a fixed price, with an additional admin charge. They are not negotiable (try it and see)

But your argument about "I'll only buy a house if I get a discount" means that you're not really serious about the place as a home. You just want to buy some bricks and mortar.

Ultimately, "offers over" worked last year and the year before very nicely when the housing market had a huge shortage of stock.
Many areas had anything up to 10 people bidding on each house. I'd rather have "offers over" and the offers out in the open, rather than "sealed bids" which is frankly a lottery.

I don't think it's appropriate for the market right now though, unless you're in a buoyant area (and despite what Fackers and others might say, there are still some very buoyant areas).

My car actually increased in value after buying it by 25%... Bought April 2021, by Sept 21 the same car was 25% more everywhere. I actually make back more than I paid for it if I wrote it off 🤷‍♂️.
 I don't think it will ever happen again or has ever happened before but apparently cars can appreciate in value 👍 
Not that it's any use to me, kind of like house values, because I need to car and the next one has increased equally so I'm no better off if I sell it. 

lookstraightahead

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

I totally ignore offers over and offer what I can afford. If they don't accept I walk away, leaving the offer on the table.

It's pointless trying to speculate (especially when houses are put on for whatever the vendor fancies) so just offer what you're happy with.

This process gives you an idea in terms of the thought process of a seller. If you aren't going to offer over then look at a different property. This is the equivalent of a tire kicker looking to buy a car that they don't have the funds/wont pay the asking price for. The headers are there for a reason, they highlight who you are dealing with, the value they feel the house is absolute and gives you an idea as to how you structure your offer based on how much you want the house and what you can afford.

Well it's always worked for me. Offers over is made up nonsense in my experience. And buyers know that. 

If the buyer thinks the seller is a tire kicker, though, they don't have to view if they don't want. 

It's a marketing ploy by the estate agent. It's so obvious. And laughable. And the seller misses out if naive buyers don't take a look. 

So do you always pay forecourt price for a secondhand car? What do you think a sales team is for? 

I asked the EA to market my house 2 years ago at £290k OIRO based on comparable (EA wanted to go in lower) but knowing my house was one of the best plots in the area due to the driveway and privacy. To make my onward sale viable i knew i could accept £285k. I had to offers the day after it went live, both at asking. We told each bidder there was even offers on the table and if they would like to submit a best and final offer, It sold for £500 over the next day, as i was happy with that. The EA asked the buyer why they went in straight at asking and not lower, the seller said it was a good price and i wanted the house. 

When i buy a car i research the price and value of the model to see if its worth it, if i feel its way over priced i wont bother looking at it as the seller is unlikely to drop it to what i feel its valued at. If the price had ONO aside it then i know there is room to try and get it to the value i researched. 

When i see offers over and I've seen some comparable house slightly lower i then know the seller is going to be difficult, especially if i have to negotiate further after survey

When I've put a house in the market I always have 10% at least leeway.
when I buy a house I always expect others to have also done that. Of course they have!
When I buy a car I always buy for lower than what they're on the market at.

I don't get this link with a buyer having to pay what the seller needs to buy their onward purchase. That's like me putting my £450000 house on for £1m so that I can buy the house I would really like. 

I do my research as well, but I will go and look at houses that are on the market for more than I'm willing to pay.

As usual you've missed the point by miles.

The terminology that some sellers use can be a great tool in how someone can decide whether they actually offer on a property and for the seller whether that person is serious. 

My house was priced right for the market at top end but this is the point you missed in order to still make my onward sale work i could accept £xxxxk lower than the guide price. The buyer paid over the guide price as they really wanted the house and so did someone else. 

I'm not missing the point at all. Your theory is different from mine. That's ok.

The part in bold is what you missed when you were replying to my thread. You don't get the link between buyer paying for the sellers needs for the onward purchase. Every onward sale relies on the sold price of their property unless they have a lot of savings. In my case my onward sale would still have worked if i accepted a lower offer than what i marketed the house at.

Of course its ok to have difference in opinion on how to market a house but that's not what i was referring to about you missing the point of what i stated in my post.

Ok so from your buyer's side, they paid more than what you had marketed it for, and indeed, they paid much more than what you would have accepted. That's just naivety (by them). I'm sure you have a lovely house but it won't be the only one out there. 

Your valuation was based on how much you needed for your onwards purchase and all I'm saying is that I'm willing to walk away rather than pay to fund an onwards purchase by the vendor, especially if I know this is happening. They will have to make a decision to accept my offer and look for something else that's cheaper, or I look for something else.

And the market currently isn't on the vendors side. 

Out of interest, did you negotiate on your onwards purchase? 

First of all this was over 2 years ago. I valued the house based on comparable and taking into consideration the prime location of our house in a sought after area not based on the onward house price. The EA wanted to go lower as from what i understand had willing buyers at the lower range, i wanted to test the market. I was right. Again ill say it in capitals for you I COULD HAVE ACCEPTED A LOWER OFFER TO MAKE MY ONWARD PURCHASE STILL WORK. The buyer really liked the house so they paid a little and i mean a little over the guide price.

I bought my onward purchase from a developer for a house that the previous owners did an exchange on. They told me what the developers paid, i did some comparable research and was to negotiate a little, i was also able to get some money off for a new boiler (previous owner said it would be worth doing so). Not sure what me negotiating on my onward purchase has anything to do with what we are talking about.

You really don't need to shout 😂😂. I get exactly what you achieved. Your buyer paid more than you would have accepted.  

theoretica

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

I totally ignore offers over and offer what I can afford. If they don't accept I walk away, leaving the offer on the table.

It's pointless trying to speculate (especially when houses are put on for whatever the vendor fancies) so just offer what you're happy with.

This process gives you an idea in terms of the thought process of a seller. If you aren't going to offer over then look at a different property. This is the equivalent of a tire kicker looking to buy a car that they don't have the funds/wont pay the asking price for. The headers are there for a reason, they highlight who you are dealing with, the value they feel the house is absolute and gives you an idea as to how you structure your offer based on how much you want the house and what you can afford.

Well it's always worked for me. Offers over is made up nonsense in my experience. And buyers know that. 

If the buyer thinks the seller is a tire kicker, though, they don't have to view if they don't want. 

It's a marketing ploy by the estate agent. It's so obvious. And laughable. And the seller misses out if naive buyers don't take a look. 

So do you always pay forecourt price for a secondhand car? What do you think a sales team is for? 

I asked the EA to market my house 2 years ago at £290k OIRO based on comparable (EA wanted to go in lower) but knowing my house was one of the best plots in the area due to the driveway and privacy. To make my onward sale viable i knew i could accept £285k. I had to offers the day after it went live, both at asking. We told each bidder there was even offers on the table and if they would like to submit a best and final offer, It sold for £500 over the next day, as i was happy with that. The EA asked the buyer why they went in straight at asking and not lower, the seller said it was a good price and i wanted the house. 

When i buy a car i research the price and value of the model to see if its worth it, if i feel its way over priced i wont bother looking at it as the seller is unlikely to drop it to what i feel its valued at. If the price had ONO aside it then i know there is room to try and get it to the value i researched. 

When i see offers over and I've seen some comparable house slightly lower i then know the seller is going to be difficult, especially if i have to negotiate further after survey

When I've put a house in the market I always have 10% at least leeway.
when I buy a house I always expect others to have also done that. Of course they have!
When I buy a car I always buy for lower than what they're on the market at.

I don't get this link with a buyer having to pay what the seller needs to buy their onward purchase. That's like me putting my £450000 house on for £1m so that I can buy the house I would really like. 

I do my research as well, but I will go and look at houses that are on the market for more than I'm willing to pay.

As usual you've missed the point by miles.

The terminology that some sellers use can be a great tool in how someone can decide whether they actually offer on a property and for the seller whether that person is serious. 

My house was priced right for the market at top end but this is the point you missed in order to still make my onward sale work i could accept £xxxxk lower than the guide price. The buyer paid over the guide price as they really wanted the house and so did someone else. 

I'm not missing the point at all. Your theory is different from mine. That's ok.

The part in bold is what you missed when you were replying to my thread. You don't get the link between buyer paying for the sellers needs for the onward purchase. Every onward sale relies on the sold price of their property unless they have a lot of savings. In my case my onward sale would still have worked if i accepted a lower offer than what i marketed the house at.

Of course its ok to have difference in opinion on how to market a house but that's not what i was referring to about you missing the point of what i stated in my post.

Ok so from your buyer's side, they paid more than what you had marketed it for, and indeed, they paid much more than what you would have accepted. That's just naivety (by them). I'm sure you have a lovely house but it won't be the only one out there. 

But they said they had two offers of asking price - and then one went up by a tiny amount.  House buying isn't just between the seller and buyer - but the other potential buyers too. Paying very slightly over the next bidder for what you want seems well judged to me.

TheJP

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

TheJP said:

lookstraightahead said:

I totally ignore offers over and offer what I can afford. If they don't accept I walk away, leaving the offer on the table.

It's pointless trying to speculate (especially when houses are put on for whatever the vendor fancies) so just offer what you're happy with.

This process gives you an idea in terms of the thought process of a seller. If you aren't going to offer over then look at a different property. This is the equivalent of a tire kicker looking to buy a car that they don't have the funds/wont pay the asking price for. The headers are there for a reason, they highlight who you are dealing with, the value they feel the house is absolute and gives you an idea as to how you structure your offer based on how much you want the house and what you can afford.

Well it's always worked for me. Offers over is made up nonsense in my experience. And buyers know that. 

If the buyer thinks the seller is a tire kicker, though, they don't have to view if they don't want. 

It's a marketing ploy by the estate agent. It's so obvious. And laughable. And the seller misses out if naive buyers don't take a look. 

So do you always pay forecourt price for a secondhand car? What do you think a sales team is for? 

I asked the EA to market my house 2 years ago at £290k OIRO based on comparable (EA wanted to go in lower) but knowing my house was one of the best plots in the area due to the driveway and privacy. To make my onward sale viable i knew i could accept £285k. I had to offers the day after it went live, both at asking. We told each bidder there was even offers on the table and if they would like to submit a best and final offer, It sold for £500 over the next day, as i was happy with that. The EA asked the buyer why they went in straight at asking and not lower, the seller said it was a good price and i wanted the house. 

When i buy a car i research the price and value of the model to see if its worth it, if i feel its way over priced i wont bother looking at it as the seller is unlikely to drop it to what i feel its valued at. If the price had ONO aside it then i know there is room to try and get it to the value i researched. 

When i see offers over and I've seen some comparable house slightly lower i then know the seller is going to be difficult, especially if i have to negotiate further after survey

When I've put a house in the market I always have 10% at least leeway.
when I buy a house I always expect others to have also done that. Of course they have!
When I buy a car I always buy for lower than what they're on the market at.

I don't get this link with a buyer having to pay what the seller needs to buy their onward purchase. That's like me putting my £450000 house on for £1m so that I can buy the house I would really like. 

I do my research as well, but I will go and look at houses that are on the market for more than I'm willing to pay.

As usual you've missed the point by miles.

The terminology that some sellers use can be a great tool in how someone can decide whether they actually offer on a property and for the seller whether that person is serious. 

My house was priced right for the market at top end but this is the point you missed in order to still make my onward sale work i could accept £xxxxk lower than the guide price. The buyer paid over the guide price as they really wanted the house and so did someone else. 

I'm not missing the point at all. Your theory is different from mine. That's ok.

The part in bold is what you missed when you were replying to my thread. You don't get the link between buyer paying for the sellers needs for the onward purchase. Every onward sale relies on the sold price of their property unless they have a lot of savings. In my case my onward sale would still have worked if i accepted a lower offer than what i marketed the house at.

Of course its ok to have difference in opinion on how to market a house but that's not what i was referring to about you missing the point of what i stated in my post.

Ok so from your buyer's side, they paid more than what you had marketed it for, and indeed, they paid much more than what you would have accepted. That's just naivety (by them). I'm sure you have a lovely house but it won't be the only one out there. 

Your valuation was based on how much you needed for your onwards purchase and all I'm saying is that I'm willing to walk away rather than pay to fund an onwards purchase by the vendor, especially if I know this is happening. They will have to make a decision to accept my offer and look for something else that's cheaper, or I look for something else.

And the market currently isn't on the vendors side. 

Out of interest, did you negotiate on your onwards purchase? 

First of all this was over 2 years ago. I valued the house based on comparable and taking into consideration the prime location of our house in a sought after area not based on the onward house price. The EA wanted to go lower as from what i understand had willing buyers at the lower range, i wanted to test the market. I was right. Again ill say it in capitals for you I COULD HAVE ACCEPTED A LOWER OFFER TO MAKE MY ONWARD PURCHASE STILL WORK. The buyer really liked the house so they paid a little and i mean a little over the guide price.

I bought my onward purchase from a developer for a house that the previous owners did an exchange on. They told me what the developers paid, i did some comparable research and was to negotiate a little, i was also able to get some money off for a new boiler (previous owner said it would be worth doing so). Not sure what me negotiating on my onward purchase has anything to do with what we are talking about.

You really don't need to shout 😂😂. I get exactly what you achieved. Your buyer paid more than you would have accepted.  

You are just as bad as crashy. Ill leave it there.