Timm

That looks like more than a third. What am I missing?

Very funny and an advert for tackical.vote But are the constituency boundaries not due to change? That would make all their data out of date...

Fair enough - you do get that attitude in Woodstock (but you also get it in north Oxford...) I'm going to try and avoid guessing your work location, sector or possible employment perks... Yes, although they are upgrading the cycle route along the A44 (possibly ruined by the roundabouts?) Yes, I can see that. Does your present accommodation offer those benefits? Well, if you have to wait, you have to wait. But it is sensible to keep following the market. Then if something does crop up - you'll recognise it and can pounce.

Woodstock is an amazing place if you have a bit of cash. But as you imply, it will always be full of w*nkers that have more. I didn't realise you were bike led. Have you considered places on stopping rail routes? Radley, Tackley, Heyford, Kings Sutton? Maybe even Banbury Abingdon or Bicester... Oh dude. Please don't try to time the market. The only advice I ever give people in the real word is "If you like it, and can afford it, then buy it. If you don't like it or can't afford it, then don't buy it" I know it sounds trite, but it's the best I have, and it has never let me down. Exactly. We all are. So just buy value if you see it.

Yes, it is ugly on the outside, but it is two bed, share of freehold, in Woodstock (great bus service to Oxford and £225k. Also great views, walks and pubs - a great place to entertain... £369 per square foot if my maths is right. https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/131042651#/?channel=RES_BUY I'm not saying if you should buy now or not, but this does seem to tick your boxes.

6.5% for me.

We will be looking for something quite rare, so it will be difficult to find comparables. But on a £persqf basis, yes - prices are gently falling. I agree that most falls will be in the SE, but maybe that is my VI speaking!

Going by the HP Indexes, that would appear to be the case. I'm guessing that this is because we started with less debt and a long fix.

Me. We will still be on the same fixed rate as we were in 2022, but it is about 7.5% less work to service, due to pay rises. Have about 100k in bonds earning more than we pay on the mortgage which we hope to trade up with. With a 10% fall in nominal nominal prices, that means we might get a slightly better house than otherwise.

Sounds like they would rather have middle class English people living next door than normal Welsh people.

So we are down about 6% from the peak in nominal terms, with 9% inflation since then. Another 4% nominal and say 6% real would take us close to 25% down in real terms by the end of next year. That would not be a bad outcome IMHO. (feel free to correct my maths)

I suspect the answers may lie back in 2021: https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/westmidlands/news/2042958-resilient-purplebricks-reads-to-focus-on-uk “We strongly believe that, in the current market, technology led estate agency is starting to emerge as the winning model and there is clear evidence that consumers are increasingly shifting towards apps and tech-based alternatives. With our strengthened leadership team and balance sheet, we are in a strong position to accelerate our model, extend our market share and grow our value-add revenues.”“We strongly believe that, in the current market, technology led estate agency is starting to emerge as the winning model and there is clear evidence that consumers are increasingly shifting towards apps and tech-based alternatives. With our strengthened leadership team and balance sheet, we are in a strong position to accelerate our model, extend our market share and grow our value-add revenues.”

Market share. You beat me to it! With current low volumes and existing EAs on their uppers, PBs think they can detroy enough EAs to fundamentally alter the market to their advantage (or as you say, dominance).

I look at that first image and I see a channel that has been trending downwards for about 20 months.

Squatting was legal when he moved in. The former owner/s could have got him out if they could have been bothered / noticed. But they didn't, so through the passage of time, he legally got the house.

Yes, that is true for tradespeople that rely on the big developers. Less so for the truely self employed - for every new house that does not get built, there is somebody who gets an extension or a new bathroom instead of moving. (Yes, I accept that is an exageration)

Exactly, and another way of looking at it is not going to uni means you have less competition for the non uni jobs. We have done up several houses over the years and now have a settled pool of reliable tradespeople that we use. None of them went to uni, all are self employed and pull in 40 - 60k just on personal day rate alone. They are all working class at work and middle clss at home. I was going to put some more detailed anecdotes in, but I'll limit myself to one: One of our tradespeople goes shooting with an ex cabinet minister. I've told my son that I will fund him through uni if he can get into Oxbridge, St Andrews or LSE, otherwise, he will need to get a trade and I will buy him tools and a van and a decent accountant. PS. I don't understand why it is plumbers that can charge the most? I would have guessed it shoud be sparks?

I agree that there are two ways to look at things: 1. Interest rates have stopped rising, price falls are over and the correction was mainly real, not nominal. 2. Actual nominal prices are still falling, seasonal adjustment is unreliable in a falling market and there are further nominal falls to come. My money is on 2. But it would be silly not to consider 1.

😃

Whar is a years worth of trainers? I just buy a pair and then buy another pair when the first pair fall apart.

Thing is, people only pat EAs because they don't want to / can't sell their house themselves. Likewise, EAs pay Rightmove because they can't do the job themselves.

Do keep up! https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/nov/26/labour-grassroots-back-starmer-gender-self-identification

I agree. TBH, it will take a while to get these policies into place, by which time prices could have fallen, along with land values and councils could step into the shoes of bancrupt builders. Ahh weel, one can dream...

And here is what they *could* justify with that text: A housing recovery plan; a blitz of planning reform to quickly boost housebuilding to buy and rent and deliver the biggest boost to affordable housing in a generation, enhancing local voice on ‘how’ housing is built with communities confident plans will be delivered "This is how many homes your community will provide, now, where do you want them? The next generation of ‘new towns’; new communities with beautiful homes, green spaces, reliable transport links and bustling high streets We are going to buy up low quality agricultural land at current prices for housing. Unleashing Mayors; a package of devolution to Mayors, with stronger powers over planning and control over housing investment We are going to allow Councils to borrow money to build houses. ‘Planning passport’ for urban brownfield development; with a fast track approval and delivery of high-density housing on urban brownfield sites Build it or lose it - no landbanking. First dibs for first time buyers; supporting younger people the first chance at homes in new housing developments with a government-backed mortgage guarantee scheme. Any Nimbies resisting this are just stealing from those poor youngsters.

I've got some simple ideas for them: 1. Ressurect the Regional Spacial Strategies that Cameron killed in 2010. These broke down national housbuilding targets and forced them down onto the regions, who then had to break them down to areas. It was then for local planning authorities to decide where to put the houses, not how many to allow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_spatial_strategy 2. Allow / force local councils to identify new land for housing. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65619675 https://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1848275/natural-england-chair-calls-homebuilding-green-belt 3. Allow this land to be purchased at current value (not housbuilding value). https://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1848275/natural-england-chair-calls-homebuilding-green-belt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning_and_Compulsory_Purchase_Act_2004 https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/compulsory-purchase-compensation-reforms-consultation/outcome/compulsory-purchase-compensation-reforms-consultation-outcome 4. Allow developers permission to develop on the land. But if any homes are not available for occupation within five years, a financial penatly must be paid and the right to develop lapses. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/use-of-planning-conditions 5. Allow Councils to borrow to build and then rent out / sell the resultant homes. If sold, the money goes to build more homes / infrastructure. https://www.housingtoday.co.uk/news/45-of-councils-now-have-build-to-rent-in-their-pipeline/5118536.article I'm not sure those ideas would go down well, but the legal structure for all of them already exists / used to exist / has already been announced / is in advanced development, so it could be done if the political will was there to do it. If I was going to do it, I would bury the intention in the manifesto just before an election. Because these things are not new ideas, I think it could be done without spooking the horses. Edit - posted a link twice