Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

tim123

New Members
  • Posts

    3,734
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by tim123

  1. Totally agree. Right now prices are being held up by agents competing for business from sellers, which they do by promising absurd prices.

    The incentive to distort the price up will be removed when the seller uses a direct "service" like the one Tesco planned. They will put down the price they feel is right.

    How many people have decided to sell, been round 5 agents only to be told by Foxton's that their house is "worth" 20K more? That won't happen if this goes ahead.

    Where do you think people are going to get the "idea" of the price that they should try to sell for.

    The no-service listing boards certainly aren't going to tell them

    tim

  2. They've already started to put the squeeze on EAs according to one of the other threads here. I expect they'll be moving into this real soon now –

    I consider those two statements to be contradictory.

    They are putting the squeeze on EAs by ramping up fees for unlimited postings, but private sellers only want to advertise a single property. If they introduce such an option the EAs will use it selectively instead of being ripped off for unlimited postings

    tim

  3. Yes. So the games back on!

    EAs are one of the only few protected businesses left anyway.

    ISTM that it's a bit perverse to claim that a piece of legislation which is designed to protect consumers creates a protected business.

    I'm not sure that from the pov of the buyer that this change is welcome. There's going to be nothing to stop direct sellers adverting their properties with a tissue of lies wasting people's time doing viewings on unsuitable properties that they would have skipped if they had the truth in the first place.

    tim

  4. That's the bit that I really can't understand Why do they never consider that they can rent a nice place for X but can only buy a pokey sh*thole for x+y? How can they not see that this is completely ****-about-face?

    Because they’d suffered the "we've rented five different places in five years" malarkey.

    It wasn't clear why but if it was because "the LL wanted the property back" each time then they were extraordinarily unlucky, not one of the (3) properties that I have rented in the past 6 years would I have had to move from if it wasn't for a job move (or in the last case, lack of job move)

    tim

  5. Do I detect a change in this programme from architecture/design to soap opera - where we the viewers take more delight in watching an unfolding car crash than in admiring the state of the art granite worktop?

    Y

    The program has to be filmed to a schedule.

    How can they tell when they start filming, whether it will be finished by the time that they have to move to the cutting-room?

    "make over" programs always suffer this risk

    tim

  6. ...buy at auction.Have patience, get the mortgage in order (if needed)...research...go for the kill. Just bought my first flat...55K city centre (fully furnished too!). Last sold November 2001 for 105k. Seems like a bargain:) Not new-build either but a nice conversion job.

    IMO dont bother waiting for mr & mrs jones's to drop their house 3% every 12 months...

    Any similar experiences out there?...

    IME you have to get exceptionally lucky to get a bargin property at auction that you would be prepared to live in. Most are either absolute dumps on sink estates or sell for pretty close to "full" value.

    If you've done this then well done (and some more info woukld be appreciated).

    tim

  7. Meanwhile people who own one property continue to subsidise the council tax of those who own more than one. So in their example someone owning 2 @ £320k might get 50% off the second one so pays 3 times more council tax for owning property 8 times more valuable.

    Except that people who own more than one property don't go to school twice as often or make benefit claims twice as often (which is about 75% of council spend), only things like emptying bins gets down twice and that is a trivial spend by the council.

    The purpose of council tax is a payment for services offered, distributed fairly amongst local users, its purpose isn't a way to redistribute wealth (fairly or otherwise)

    tim

  8. Just got my car insurance renewal in and the price has gone down.

    last year:

    £374

    This year

    £358

    And that's without phoning up and asking them for a better deal.

    This has never happened before....am I dreaming ?

    I might even just accept the renewal without arguing this year.

    P.S. That is with elephant....god bless them.

    I thought elephant were an online broker, not an insurance company?

    tim

  9. Only if the lease is short.

    "Virtual freehold" is now commonplace, meaning leasehold where the lease is so extremely long, that any possible consideration for renewal of the lease is negligible.

    A freeholder where the leases held are 100 years (or even 1000 years) essentially sees no uplift in the value of his freehold from social expenditure. The uplift is taken by the leaseholders.

    Only during the term,

    At the end of the lease the uplifted value reverts to the freeholder (for free), unless that is, the leaseholder take up his rights to extend his lease, but if he does so the formula moves much of the uplifted value to the freeholder, at that point.

    (Though it's all moot as it's never going to happen)

    tim

  10. So - my sister is helping a good family friend going through a hard time. Her mother died over a year ago, and her flat (very upmarket) been on sale for a year with no takers. Service fees continue to stack, of course. My comment that 'Then it's priced too highly, and she needs to drop the price so someone buys it' was met with complete incomprehension.

    Any suggestions on helpful wording? This family friend has a LOT of other complications in her life, and I can see that selling would be one less thing to worry about.

    well first you have to establish why it is on for the price that it is on at.

    tim

  11. If you don't have #5, then people can't let our their houses whilst they, to use your example, travel as they can't be sure of getting them back afterwards.

    There is already a process for doing this, but many LLs (not in this position) would be reluctant to let if there wasn't a guarenteed "no fault" route to getting their property back, as they know that the "with fault" reasons are open to T playing the system

    tim

  12. tenants and landlords should be able to agree any term they like.

    This means that the tenant is secure for as long as he likes, and not at the whim of an over zealous agent who wants renewal fees every year.

    And once started, an AST rolled over into Statutory should roll as long as the tenant wishes...two months notice is just too short.

    1) So L and T are going to able to agree what will happen if T does not pay rent one month? There has to be some statutory rules involved here, the question is where do you draw the line.

    2/3) Few LLs are going to agree with giving a tenant completel security of tenure for reasons that I've argued before. The issue with agencies getting involved in the process is simply fixed by forbidding them from charging for it, they'll soon keep their noses out if there wasn't any extra money involved.

    tim

  13. One of the "management-types" at my place of work has had an offer accepted on a house this morning ... on the market at 425, she and hubby wanted to pay 395 (cos she's the 'canny' type), sale agreed at 405. She's all happy clappy and feels that she's "won" because she went up 10 but the vendor came down 20, not for one second considering that the property was overvalued by up to 30%. Apparantly, it's only 10k and not that much anyway.

    I want to scream!

    what's the basis on you saying it's 30% overpriced?

    tim

  14. http://www.24dash.com/news/housing/2012-09-12-Extend-security-of-tenure-to-help-fix-broken-housing-market-report

    Here's the future, most people rent but with more secure tennancies.

    Everyone's a winner...or not.

    I'm inclined to think that the number of people this would help would be tiny.

    At the risk of agencies misinterpreting the rule to mean that they can only offer 24 month fixed term (as they currently do the with 6 month rule), which may not suit everybody.

    Are there really a huge number of people who get given notice at the 6/12 month point because the LL wants the property back which aren't:

    1) S21 notice given to poor paying tenants because it's easier to evict them this way.

    2) Tenants given a S21 notice to quit as a negotiating tactic by the agents/LL to get tenants to agree to a new fixed term/increased rent, which backfires when the tenant thinks that the LL really does want them out.

    This change in the rule won't affect (1) as there is not six month limit to S8 evictions, and if 2 is a problem then the way that S21 notices are enforced can be changed so that that S21s can't be used in this way. (No immediatle ideas how to achieve this but it can't be impossible)

    Edit - actually I do have an idea. Banning all fees to the tenant on contract renewal would go some way to fixing it, as with no fees involved there would be much less reason for the agents to press for the new contract - of course that doesn't help with a LL who actually want a fixed term. (yes I know we should ban all fees to tenants but that a much bigger can of worms)

  15. Also highlights the fact that the whole system is a joke. The government doesn't have the money to make any guarantee. They will just print it.

    PRINTY PRINTY.

    But as an individual who's just (potentially) lost 85K, if the choice is getting back something with the buying power of 80K, or nothing at all, it's s no-brainer

    tim

  16. What this tends to mean is they want cheap IT workers, a British IT worker of the calibre/experience they need might want 80k but an Indian chap desperate to get his foot in the door of the UK would be more than willing to do it for 25 or 30k,

    unrelated but he'd then live in a rented 2 bed apartment with seven other Indian IT workers.

    As a skilled IT worker I don't know anyone on close to 80K.

    SAP specialists perhaps (outside my working area), but generic IT people go for 45-50 ish

    tim

  17. Could you give me the reference to that, is it '(b)the landlord or, in the case of joint landlords, at least one of them has given to the tenant not less than two months’ notice [F2in writing] stating that he requires possession of the dwelling-house.'

    I always thought there was something else that said otherwise but can't find it.

    www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/138289.pdf

    SS 6.2 on p20.

×
×
  • 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.