Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

nicebuyer

Members
  • Posts

    298
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by nicebuyer

  1. My situation is somewhat similar. Looking to buy £500k-£650k.

    The vendors of the less desirable houses in this price range are always willing to take a big cut, 20%-30% is not uncommon taking the price to 2003 levels. However if it's a house we really like others either buy at 2007 levels or the vendor won't reduce and leaves the house sitting there.

    I've seen at least 5 properties that should be priced £500k in today's market but people are jumping in and paying top whack. I just don't get it. I suppose when there are so few nice houses the demand is high and vendors can ask for silly prices.

    In the area I'm looking I could buy a flat at 50% of 2007 levels, I could buy a small 2/3 bed house in a part of town I don't like for next to nothing but in a desirable area they won't even accept 5% off. It seems that with so few nice houses in nice areas coming on the market around here prices are being kept high. I'm sure that overall house prices have plummeted in my area but certainly not in my price bracket.

  2. The houses on your road that are currently on offer for rental are:

    http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-ren...y-20085400.html

    It's a 2 bed, unextended. Not all that nice really but for a tiny 2 bed in that condition sure, you're not going to get £2k.

    http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-ren...y-11707692.html

    Horrid new build, not a character property, obviously not going to rent at that kind of level.

    http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-ren...y-21012118.html

    4 bed flat, again, not an attractive proposition.

    A good condition, 3 bed extended house on Florence, Clarence etc will go for £500k in today's market. There's no question about it. They are selling for that right now. I want prices to reduce as much as anyone, I would buy one outright with cash at £450k for a good 3 bed extended but they simply are not at that price yet.

    If you find me a nice house for your magical £200k in the next 18 months I will personally give you £50k to find it. Heck, find me a nice one now for £400k and I will give you £50k cash.

    I think that these houses have a little way to fall but not much, the problem is that there are so many other houses in SW19 in worse places going for not much less.

    I went to see a place on Florence a few weeks ago, offered £395k, cash, no survey etc, rejected. It's on at £499k I think, nowhere near worth that but they don't need to sell and so rejected it.

    I rather like this place: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sa...y-19805560.html

    I've not seen it yet but I'd probably offer around £450k for it. I guess you think I'm paying about 50% more than I should be? :) Seriously though, if I thought they'd accept £450k I'd probably offer.

  3. And the fact that less than 18 months past peak there is one of these houses for auction with a guide of £325K? And that they only command £1200pm in rent. You have to remember that prices were so high because of a huge speculative bubble. They were utterly divorced from reality, the prices reached at peak are meaningless in terms of value. They need to be forgotten in terms of assessing actual value.

    The guide price means very little. That particular house, to be on par with others would need an extension and loft conversion. That's at least £100k in work notwithstanding the cost of doing it up because it's a mess.

    The rent is also much higher than £1200 in SPG. You might have got a good deal but they go for an awful lot more now. Eg

    http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-ren...y-20871106.html

    http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-ren...y-11502267.html

    http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-ren...y-24317369.html

    http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-ren...y-19895677.html

    http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-ren...y-20824741.html

    Your assertion that these will cost £200k in a couple of years is laughable. You can't buy in the Battles for that kind of price. Heck, a nice period property on Haydons road will cost twice that much.

    EDIT...and by the way, if they're selling at £500k today then we'd need to see another 60% drop in prices to get to your level. I'm all for big price drops and a continuing crash but I think we need to be a bit more realistic than 60% drops in Wimbledon over the next 18 months.

  4. Thing is, one doesn't know what offer has been accepted on the advertised prices.

    I have a reasonable idea :) Let's just say that none are in the £200k range :) Also, recent sales in that area on ourproperty show £500k levels, one 3 bed at £540k.

  5. Interesting, looking at other houses in that specific area that have sold in the last few days:

    http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sa...y-20491561.html

    http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sa...y-19872982.html

    http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sa...y-19116100.html

    As for that house you mention, it was a £540k offer that was being spoken about in terms of a good price.

    Re. your £190k assertion, nonsense. That would be a £450k drop from peak. The fact that these are still selling around £500k-£600k should give you some idea of today's value and potential further drops.

  6. No they choose the area because of the quality of many primary & secondary schools. Streatham & Clapham High is one of the best schools in the country, sure it's independent but it's a great school. Many of the state schools score high too....Streatham Wells, St Andrews, Julians, St Leonards, Immanuel & St Andrews, Christchurch. That's quite a choice of decent schools for one area of London. Graveney & Dunraven are 2 highly regarded secondary schools too.

    All the stats are on the BBC and ofstead, really the area is renowned for having great schools.

    I know little of these other schools, I do know that if they're any good then houses in the area would be very expensive. My friend has just purchased a house for £1.8m because it was in the right catchment area, another 500 metres further out and you'd pay no more than £1m. Streatham is cheap because it's a manky area, no amount of arguing will convince anyone.

    As for Ofsted, that really doesn't tell you much. Most parents tend to ignore those reports, they mean very little.

    The fact is Streatham is a hole. I know you live there and want to believe it's nice but deep down you're as aware as anyone else just how bad it is. If you had the money you'd move somewhere else. I'd even move somewhere like Raynes Park or Wimbledon Park if I was looking at SW London. Schools will be just as good and you'll see far fewer shootings and gang crime.

  7. :rolleyes:

    One of the worst areas in London? How did you come to this conclusion?

    I live in the area, I use the local ammenties, I choose to bring up my family in this area, there's nothing wrong with it! Driving through the high road is not enough to qualify you on an area!

    If you don't think Streatham is a good place to live fine, but please offer up some suggestions to why!

    Streatham works for me, because it's easy to get into Town, has very good state schools and very good housing stock at reasonable-ish prices.

    Why do you think plenty of families choose the area?!!!

    Nothing wrong with it? I guess my standards are a little higher, you see, I like to walk the streets at night without fearing imminent death.

    Indeed my friend's father was helping him move into a flat there a couple of years ago. As he was taking things out of the car he was shot, middle of the day. Only an airgun but it caused enough damage. The police came out and said that he was lucky it wasn't a real gun. "it is Streatham" he said.

    Why do families choose the area? Because it's cheap. Cheap as chips. You can buy a nice looking house for £250k. Of course there's a reason for that.

    So yes, if you have very little money, need a cheap house then it's a place worth looking at. Personally I'd rather move out of London and get a job paying less and live somewhere else that's not so crime ridden. It always amazes me that people stay in London when they have to live in places like that. Why not move out, earn a little less and buy an awful lot more and have a higher quality of life?

  8. Exaggeration alert. I'm down there a lot and have never had trouble. However, wouldn't want to have a teenage son there as gang problems are rife. Also wouldn't want to be walking a dog or taking a small child to the park as the number of badly trained, out of control Staffs, pit bull mixes, often belonging to badly trained teens is growing. It's said there are dog fights on the common at night.

    Exaggeration alert?

    Then you start talking about dog fights with put bulls on the common and that gang problems are rife and you wouldn't want to bring up a teenage son there. Sounds like a lovely place :blink:

    Let's be honest, anyone that lives there would move in a heartbeat if they could, it's a dreadful place.

  9. It depends in South West where your looking, I mean if we're talking Wandsworth, Battersea & Clapham then for 350K you won't get 3 beds (period house) and a garden...if your not too fussy and are looking at ex-local or even new build house then your budget might stretch to that.

    An area I'd recommend for you in South West London where you will get a 3 Bed House and Garden is Streatham, it's where I live. By all accounts Streatham hasn't got a great reputation on here or in general but it really isn't a bad area. Bear in mind, I wouldn't go any further out than Central Streatham (around Sunnyhill Road Conservation area).

    IMHO Streatham has excellent transport links into town by bus or rail, the high street although not very appealing asthetically has all your basics like WHSmiths, Sainsburys Local, Tesco Express, Boots, Pizza Express along with your independents of pretty much every interest, some are downright awful, some very handy.

    Nightlife is pretty dire...you have a few nice Gastropubs (Waterfront & Railway), a few modern bar type affairs (Perfect Blend, Mint & Nineteen) and then a handful of quite decent value independent restaurants (De Francos, Wholemeal Cafe Etc).

    Your no more than 15 minutes from a tube station (Brixton on Victoria Line) or (Tooting Broadway/Bec on Northern Line), and not that far from either Brixton, Clapham or Balham for a more interesting evening out.

    There's plenty of green spaces, Streatham Common & Rookery, Tooting Bec Common & Hillside Gardens.

    Residents wise, you have plenty of young families living in Streatham due to the excellent state schools and private school.

    It probably has the best concentration of primary state schools in Lambeth, that's why I moved here as I have a family. You also have plenty of young professionals that live in Streatham too, though they tend to live up the Hill as there's plenty of convertions up that way.

    In regards to property, well I'd look around the Sunnyhill Road Conservation area, streets such as Sunnyhill Road, Angles Road, Wellfield Road (probably the nicest) & Farm Avenue . You have plenty of 19th century Terraced/Semi-Detached/Detached Houses & Cottages, many of them unconverted, very pretty streets IMHO.

    For 350K, you'll get a 3 Bed Terrace, with a decent size garden.

    Hope this helps....

    Streatham? One of the worst areas in London, if not the country. I don't drive through without a weapon of some kind in my car. It's like South Africa, don't stop for red at the traffic lights. I'm all for being positive about the places we live, perhaps being a little bias even but suggesting Streatham as a good place to live is going a bit too far.

    Streatham? Oh my goodness.

  10. I don't see what all the fuss is about. Both Tuffers and Davis are financial planners/advisers or whatever you want to call people that couldn't get a proper job in finance. They have a spat about FSA regulations and that should be the end of it. If Davis goes, so what? His suggestions that 2002 was a good time to STR were ludicrous. If I'd have taken his advice I'd be much poorer for it. I also see the odd discussion about commodities, it's obvious neither has much of a clue what they're talking about. If they did they wouldn't be on a forum offering up free advice to all and sundry and they'd save it for their ever so rich and well advised clients.

    Get rid of them both and let's have some fun discussing issues that really matter not watching two financial planners argue about some poxy FSA regulation that anyone with an E in GCSE maths could get. Boring.

  11. A return to Granny's looking after the children for a few hours a week would be great but Granny's these days need to be out at work too.

    That's because most grannies nowadays are in their late 20s :)

  12. Does anyone have any inside knowledge on Mothercare themselves?

    .

    My brother got vouchers for xmas and I would like him to use them quickly if they are abt to go pop.

    .

    ST

    Mothercare is fine. People need to buy baby items no matter what the economy is like. Mothercare is also one of the cheaper places, Mamas and Papas on the other hand, that's a different kettle of fish. Go walk into your local Mothercare, it'll be rammed.

  13. No offense, but if you can afford £150/day to pay someone else to look after your kids, surely either you or your wife can afford to give up their job, and bring the children up yourselves?

    My wife gave up her job and now works part time. We use the nanny part of the time and the kids are at school/nursery in the mornings. The wife looks after them in the afternoon. It's just nice for the wife to spend a bit of time doing other things whilst the nanny is here, it gives her a bit of time off.

    I also passionately believe that kids should be in an environment with other kids as soon as possible. Even if my wife gives up work completely they will still go to nursery. Spending all day at home with mum is fine, just not every single day. I think the child gets bored of mum and doesn't get the new experiences that the child should do and I think the mum can get bored of the child and can get a bit complacent.

    The notion that kids should be at home with their mums all the time if possible, IMO, is wrong. Nursery/daycare is crucial.

  14. It's not quibbling over a extra £1 is it.

    I doubt anybody on this thread would accept an over night 25% increase on any service, for those renting would you accept a 25% increase in rent, very much doubt it, what about 25% in petrol prices that didn't go down too well recently either.

    Depends on the starting point doesn't it? If petrol cost 2p a litre then I'd more than welcome a 25% increase. We're talking about £5ph rather than £4ph for looking after and caring for a child!!

  15. I send my child to a nursery. The nursery is rated as 'excellent' or 'good' for each category in OFSTED inspections. There is a massive waiting list, and is generally considered to be the best in the town. Just so happens that this nursery is the closest to my house therefore we chose it - not for snobbish reasons!

    They will take your child for up to 11 hours a day, feed them, provide all nappies and supplies etc.

    They will take them on day trips like zoos (at no extra charge). They cook all the food on site and the food is sourced locally. Their kitchens have been awarded 5* in inspection programmes.

    You get a daily written report of you child's activities and progress as well as details of food eaten, nappy changes etc.

    There is an abundance of toys and activities as well as custom facilities for children.

    This works out at about £4.00 per hour for a baby and less for infants.

    Compare this with a child minder, operating from home charging the same...

    I send my child to nursery/school too. I pay about £1500 a term for 4 mornings a week. I then pay a nanny for three afternoons, I think I pay about £150 a day, not totally sure as the wife sorts it out but it's more than £4 an hour.

    So what? It's totally irrelevant. If my nanny charges £150 a day and tells me next week that she wants £175 instead then I'll consider it. If it makes sense then I pay it. I like her, the kids like her, she's always available, never late, really, fantastic service and worth every penny.

    The point here is not about value for money or what a child carer should earn or what kind of vare is best, it's about some muppet upset that his child carer wants a £1ph increase. If she's not worth it then don't pay it but a £1 increase is small fry when talking about your kids.

    Oh, and if this nursery of yours wrote to you tomorrow and told you that instead of charging you £4 an hour from 2009 they were charging £5 an hour I guess you would remove your children? Of course not :) LOL, if it's worth it then you pay.

  16. If 6 people were all paying me that much, and tax free, then why not?

    £26k a year, £1600 take home a month for looking after 6 children for 5 hours a day?

    However the question is not about what she is comfortable earning. The issue is about paying someone £4ph to look after your child and quibbling over an extra £1. I'd pay £4ph for someone to look after my bloody cat nevermind my child.

  17. :lol: A £1 increase an hour and you'd rather lose continuity and put your kids through hassle? Okay, if you work in McDonalds I could understand that but if you earn even a half decent amount of cash then you're nuts.

  18. I think it has something to do with the fact he can't see very well, he's actually almost blind. Blind in one eye completely and the second has about 20% viability. I think he only has a few years of sight left. A lot of hard of sight people will subconsciously use their hands to touch objects to keep themselves steady etc.

  19. Well I was exagerating the unable to pay rent bit. In fact my partner and i have a six figure income and are saving 3k a month. But when we STR we planned to pay the rent with interest, true some of our lump sum is earning 10per cent but as these deals run out we will be down to low interest figures.

    I was just trying to illustrate the complete rip-off useless prime-minister we have and show how people who really do live off there investments will suffer.

    I'm amazed that people think it somehow wrong to live of your savings, isn't that just what a pension is?

    So what's the problem? Muppet. I really don't understand some people.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.