stjude

I agree! where are you Three Little Pigs?

Thanks for your response. While there are some buyers on 150k-250k "plus bonus" (the latter is less true post credit crunch) a good number are unable to afford on their salary. The bank of mum and dad is crucial in a large number of purchases. Its not just Fulham: the council for mortgage lenders said 80% of first time buyers under 30 have parents help: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/persona...p-says-CML.html The prices in Fulham has a ripple effect and makes the rest of London pretty unaffordable, including putney and ealing. It also affects commuter belt. By your logic, if first time buyers and others should simply find a property where they "can afford" you would drive the majority of first time buyers out of London. Surely the system isn't working when house prices are not in relation to salaries? And the fact that first time buyers cannot purchase without parental funds? I appreciate Estate Agents cannot control the market but something has clearly got out of sync.

This post has a fundamental contradiction. "Sutemiwaza" suggests that estate agents don't control prices but at the same time "love" to see higher prices. Therefore, estate agents are surely pricing properties at the highest possible level? As a result, most potential buyers see the vast majority of properties in estate agents at far from "sensible" prices. I would like "Sutimewaza" to consider the following: With averages salaries in london at £46,000 is it any wonder that people are baulking at two bedroom flats in fulham for upwards of 350,000? When first time buyers make up less than 15% of new mortgages compared to 50% in 1980 is it not fair to say they have been priced out of the market? This is isn't a question of wanting to live in Mayfair, as "Sutimewaza" suggests, it's about wanting to live somewhere at all. I don't expect estate agents to behave like charities but is fairness too much to ask?