Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Mikhail Liebenstein

Property Price Graphs For Se Towns ( 25-33% Down)

Recommended Posts

In case you are not familiar with it, there is a really nice charting tool on the website www.upmystreet.com , if you go to the top tab marked "Homes and Property" and then use the drop down to "House Prices" you can then enter a location on the page and it will bring a list of sales up from the Land Registry plus give a nice graph with the prices for detached, semis, flats and terraced homes.

As it is the Land Registry data, it is of course very accurate, though to get decent result you do need to cover a large enough area - as you can see from my charts Oxted is rather bucking the trend , but that is because its a very small East Surrey town and I assume someone sold one very expensive house which pushed up the average. From the rest of the charts you can see most places are actually down 25-33% in what is meant to be the price south east. In fact if Sibley owns an average detached house in Maidstone he'll have lost at least £100k - ouch bet that hurts Sibbers, very careless of you!!!!!!!!!

List includes

Alton Brighton Dorking Epsom

Esher Farnham Guildford Maidstone

Oxted Portsmouth Reading Reigate

Soton Tadworth Tonbridge Winchester

Woking

Edited by mikelivingstone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact if Sibley owns an average detached house in Maidstone he'll have lost at least £100k - ouch bet that hurts Sibbers, very careless of you!!!!!!!!!

No because nobody is forcing him to sell .. so he has lost nothing ..

(Yeah right)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No because nobody is forcing him to sell .. so he has lost nothing ..

(Yeah right)

Absolutely he will, but if he wanted to sell today he'd have to take a £100k hit as would anyone else today selling in Maidstone.

The fact that the land registry has data for Maidstone showing people selling at these derisory (sorry market) prices proves that house prices are lower. Essentially this is all the data that has come through after the dramatic falls and quite clearly the market is down down down and in fact down a little more than many expected.

I do feel a bit sorry for people who bought in 2007, the market seemed to have a stratospheric leap between 2005 and 2007 and now we are back at 2004 prices. I can't see most of them getting their money back for 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised by these graphs. Not the last 2 years but the period from 2000 to 2007- in many of these places it looks like only 50% increase over that period- I thought it would have been more than that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised by these graphs. Not the last 2 years but the period from 2000 to 2007- in many of these places it looks like only 50% increase over that period- I thought it would have been more than that?
That might be because these are selling prices. The headlines figures in the press are often asking prices or valuations (correct me if I'm wrong), and as shown on another thread (Eric's I believe) there have been dishonest over-valuations taking place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

these graphs are based on figures with no seasonal adjustment. If you look at the black UK average line you'll see a peak happening without fail in the middle of each year (which, since it represents a registered completion price, corresponds to a deal struck and hence market value about 4 months previously, in spring).

Take care when calculating the falls that you're comparing the season in one year with the same season in another. In other words, you should only look at YoY comparisons in these charts, otherwise you'll mistake seasonal price falls for the crash. (Note what a good time winter is to buy a house relative to summer.)

The graphs from small towns are pretty misleading - too much noise in the data, causing the line to fluctuate. Also bear in mind that the graphs don't show what's happened in 2009 as they are too far behind the curve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That might be because these are selling prices. The headlines figures in the press are often asking prices or valuations (correct me if I'm wrong), and as shown on another thread (Eric's I believe) there have been dishonest over-valuations taking place.

I think I can answer this.

The house price boom in the South East Actually happened earlier than the rest of the UK.

Probably between 1998 and 2003.

In fact I distinctly remember people saying back then that yields were rubbish and perhaps they should look at the north or other areas for thing like BTL. And guess what the north obliged. There was a period where prices were rising in place like Manchester at 15-20% per year, but they were just 5% in Surrey. I think that was around 2004-2005.

Just for the record, a relative of mine in Surrey bought a house in 2000 for about £450k as their main home. Having spent roughly between £150k and £180k on it - three extensions new kitchen, bathroom etc. , they finally sold it a month back (after a period of accidental landlordism that went badly wrong) for £625k.

So I reckon they have actually lost money in nominal terms, not just inflation adjusted.

Stamp Duty would have been £13k, plus legal fees etc and it was almost certainly a loss. In part it was the house, it was basically a mirrored semi in a good estate and so whilst everyone else had nice gardens and detached homes, the semis only had front gardens (large ones mind you).

Anyway, the point I make is that in 9 years of owning a property including a period covering one of the largest booms in history they managed to make a small nominal loss (large loss if if you adjust for inflation and interest payments).

Ok the house sold for £175k more than they originally paid for it, but that doesn't cover the cost of the three large extensions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW when I sold my house which I bought in 2002 for £370k, I got £500k for it in 2007, so that is 35% in 5 years.

The house prior to that was bought in 2000 for £140k, and sold for £180k, which was a gain of 28.5% in 18 months

So clearly the biggest gains were at the front end for the decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In case you are not familiar with it, there is a really nice charting tool on the website www.upmystreet.com , if you go to the top tab marked "Homes and Property" and then use the drop down to "House Prices" you can then enter a location on the page and it will bring a list of sales up from the Land Registry plus give a nice graph with the prices for detached, semis, flats and terraced homes.

As it is the Land Registry data, it is of course very accurate, though to get decent result you do need to cover a large enough area - as you can see from my charts Oxted is rather bucking the trend , but that is because its a very small East Surrey town and I assume someone sold one very expensive house which pushed up the average. From the rest of the charts you can see most places are actually down 25-33% in what is meant to be the price south east. In fact if Sibley owns an average detached house in Maidstone he'll have lost at least £100k - ouch bet that hurts Sibbers, very careless of you!!!!!!!!!

List includes

Alton Brighton Dorking Epsom

Esher Farnham Guildford Maidstone

Oxted Portsmouth Reading Reigate

Soton Tadworth Tonbridge Winchester

Woking

I wonder when they will change the name to downmystreet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cheers Mike, very useful tool. This is the first website i've seen that shows sales in reverse chronological order; others require you to trawl through each individual street.

Yes, its just a different format of the data, but as you say its useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No because nobody is forcing him to sell .. so he has lost nothing...

Absolutely right. Sibley will get every penny of the 2007 value when he sells. If he has to hang on until 2017 or even 2027 to do so then so be it. He does not need to, and will not, sell at a loss.

Edited by the flying pig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   285 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.