mk1mini Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Really? Max 2 mins walk from West Byfleet station - £325,000 On the (admittedly infrequent) fast trains 1 stop to Surbiton, 2 stops to Waterloo and you always get a seat too. Some very good schools nearby too. http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-24848925.html Not saying £325k is a bargain, just pointing out that £500k is not a minimum for a London commutable family home. I used to live about 15mins walk away from here so I know this area fairly well and I hate to say it but if you could get a further 10-20% off that would be a stonking buy for someone. Yes it's a bit too 'convenient' for the trains, but other than that it is a great safe area, commutable to London in 30mins and IMO represents good value. I would just allow for some triple glazing for when you do up the house to cut out train noise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 You will interested in reading the Surrey thread under the south east section of this website. http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=178774&st=30 I agree with everything you say, house prices in Kingston, surrounding areas and Wimbledon etc. are unexplainably high INEXPLICABLY high actually... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worried1 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 ... another thing I have noticed is that both my current and previous Surbiton landlords have moved out of the property they subsequently let to me and now both live in houses on river roads themselves. (I lived a most enjoyable 4 years as a bachelor in Avante Court in Kingston inbetween!). Reckon there must be a few btl locals in those river road houses... It is a well trodden path, but I am not sure for how much longer? If you have a good 2 bed flat in Surbiton fully paid off and worth £350k, you could borrow £250k against that as the deposit for the new place. The problem is it is not really worth moving to a £500k terraced house as it is not much bigger than the flat, so you'd need a 3 bed semi and that is £750k by the time you have done it up. So, even assuming you throw £100k savings in with the £250k from the flat, you would still be looking at a £400k mortgage, which is a big risk considering you would have a high BTL mortgage as well. I think the area is unique in that there is a really hotly contested square half-mile which ticks all the boxes - well maintained period properties, access to a superfast mainline service, great shopping nearby, river, good high street & sense of community. It is not unique, but take a look at the other areas that are like it and they are even more expensive still - I am talking about Teddington, parts of Richmond/Twickenham, St Margarets, Barnes etc We went for a drive the other day to look at some alternatives - Worcester Park has some potential.. drove through South Merton, West Sutton & North Cheam (endless grey housing estates which looked like the end of the world) and then Cheam villiage (nice but doubtless expensive). Finally we got to Belmont (which i had never heard of until my mate bought a house there the other week) which was very nice but very quiet. We were certainly of the view that if we cannot live in one of the nicer areas then we would rather not live in London at all and will just move much further out - that is why I think they may always be some wild variations in prices accross London. I have done the same trips and always end up thinking I might as well live in the closer part of Berrylands if I am going to move somewhere like Cheam village - the prices are broadly similar and at least you could still just about walk to Kingston rather than going shopping in Sutton which isn't such a nice experience anyway. Worcester Park is ok and the zone 4 transport is slightly cheaper, but the same applies - if you can't walk to all of the amenities rather than drive, you may as well find somewhere nice right out in the sticks and save some money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guillotine Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Speculative shout for views on where the market is going here... I have lived here since 1997 and been continually behind the curve on property prices (although in hindsight should have obviously bought somewhere when i started out here). Anyway, no matter. Been living in Kingston / Surbiton (renting in various places) for 6 years and love the area. Married last summer and now with baby on the way it feels like it's time to bite the bullet. I'm 37 in December, have a good salary and have worked for one of Britain's biggest companies for over 10 years. Ideally we would love to stay in the area and have nominally decided that - SURELY - £500,000 is enough to buy a decent family home (ok, 3 bedrooms) in a nice part of town... but then i see this... http://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/18464186?search_identifier=5e879b9008d18d6c222b6a7c179ffdf0 £700,000?? And this is in Tolworth FFS... I know there have been other similar posts about the insanity of a 'bog standard' terraced family home in Clapham etc now costing around the £1m mark. I just cannot see how salaries can get anywhere near supporting the market at these levels - there can only be so many oligarchs and arms dealers out there - or am I missing something....? The problem is the he hundreds of thousands who, like yourself have decided they want to live in this vicinity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richc Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 The problem is the he hundreds of thousands who, like yourself have decided they want to live in this vicinity. There are 300,000 individuals who make over £150,000 a year in the UK, i.e. people who could afford to pay for a house in the range of £500k or above. 300,000 is not a very large number when you consider how many houses there are out there. I think this whole discussion simply underscores what a complete ponzi scheme housing has become in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worried1 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 There are 300,000 individuals who make over £150,000 a year in the UK, i.e. people who could afford to pay for a house in the range of £500k or above. 300,000 is not a very large number when you consider how many houses there are out there. I think this whole discussion simply underscores what a complete ponzi scheme housing has become in this country. Absolutely. I am not sure I can see one of the top earners in the country paying £700k to live on the wrong side of the tracks in that house in Tolworth! The problem is, just because it is wrong doesn't mean it is going to end anytime soon. If you get a couple on £60k each, some banks would still lend £500k, throw in a bit of savings/inheritance/parental gift/equity and a £700k house is acheivable, AND affordable provided that interest rates stay rock bottom and the wife doesn't want to have a baby etc etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicko75 Posted November 19, 2012 Author Share Posted November 19, 2012 The problem is the he hundreds of thousands who, like yourself have decided they want to live in this vicinity. That's not even half of it though is it.... and you know it... It is maddening that people who made blindly stupid financial decisions 5-10 years ago now think they are investment genius' because the government has intervened on their behalf to manipulate the interest rate (thus losing the taxpayer billions as they also own said banks) because to allow people to face the consequences of the risk they actually took on at the time would bring the country to its knees. Do it I say, the slow death is worse if you ask me... There is a strong chance of an ex pat opportunity in the States with my current job - if that comes along I will bite their arm off and can stop worrying about how I might be able to house my fledgling family in a shoebox after 16 years in the workforce... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trampa501 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 That's not even half of it though is it.... and you know it... It is maddening that people who made blindly stupid financial decisions 5-10 years ago now think they are investment genius' because the government has intervened on their behalf to manipulate the interest rate (thus losing the taxpayer billions as they also own said banks) because to allow people to face the consequences of the risk they actually took on at the time would bring the country to its knees. Do it I say, the slow death is worse if you ask me... There is a strong chance of an ex pat opportunity in the States with my current job - if that comes along I will bite their arm off and can stop worrying about how I might be able to house my fledgling family in a shoebox after 16 years in the workforce... Hope you get the chance! Now that the US has had their hpc there must be some seriously nice places to live at reasonable prices (and not nice places at rock bottom prices). Just as well that it's so hard to get a work permit, otherwise half of the UK would be off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr X Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 There are 300,000 individuals who make over £150,000 a year in the UK, i.e. people who could afford to pay for a house in the range of £500k or above. 300,000 is not a very large number when you consider how many houses there are out there. I think this whole discussion simply underscores what a complete ponzi scheme housing has become in this country. Don't forget those with a nice fat inheritance, lottery winners, btl landlords, foreign investors, companies etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Absolutely. I am not sure I can see one of the top earners in the country paying £700k to live on the wrong side of the tracks in that house in Tolworth! The problem is, just because it is wrong doesn't mean it is going to end anytime soon. If you get a couple on £60k each, some banks would still lend £500k, throw in a bit of savings/inheritance/parental gift/equity and a £700k house is acheivable, AND affordable provided that interest rates stay rock bottom and the wife doesn't want to have a baby etc etc. ....well if the prices were that much lower people wouldn't need to earn 2 x£60k salaries to live in a mediocre slave home..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 There are 300,000 individuals who make over £150,000 a year in the UK, i.e. people who could afford to pay for a house in the range of £500k or above. 300,000 is not a very large number when you consider how many houses there are out there. I think this whole discussion simply underscores what a complete ponzi scheme housing has become in this country. SO true.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicko75 Posted November 19, 2012 Author Share Posted November 19, 2012 Hope you get the chance! Now that the US has had their hpc there must be some seriously nice places to live at reasonable prices (and not nice places at rock bottom prices). Just as well that it's so hard to get a work permit, otherwise half of the UK would be off. Thanks mate - hopefully its even better than that... ie. Housing costs covered and paid by work while we are out there so no housing cost basically. I have spent some time in Houston lately - the market there is totally different - there is so much space that they just keep building out and out - whole new communities spring up out of nowhere - 5 bed massive houses, swimming pools etc for naff all - ok, you lose some of our "character" but it's safe, family friendly and a good place to spend a few years with a very young one whilst saving some good money....... I suppose if we did manage to buy a place here and then move US ex-pat we would just rent out our UK place...... which would then make me the bad guy.... :-s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 That's not even half of it though is it.... and you know it... It is maddening that people who made blindly stupid financial decisions 5-10 years ago now think they are investment genius' because the government has intervened on their behalf to manipulate the interest rate (thus losing the taxpayer billions as they also own said banks) because to allow people to face the consequences of the risk they actually took on at the time would bring the country to its knees. Do it I say, the slow death is worse if you ask me... There is a strong chance of an ex pat opportunity in the States with my current job - if that comes along I will bite their arm off and can stop worrying about how I might be able to house my fledgling family in a shoebox after 16 years in the workforce... I SINCERELY wish you the very BEST of luck.... You word it all perfectly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dances with sheeple Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Thought the banks were shedding jobs? How does this affect things? Can`t help feeling a lot of good areas in London just soaked up ponzi generated equity, prices are not value and not sustainable IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicko75 Posted November 19, 2012 Author Share Posted November 19, 2012 ....... I suppose if we did manage to buy a place here and then move US ex-pat we would just rent out our UK place...... which would then make me the bad guy.... :-s I can almost feel any goodwill I may have generated on this thread, rapidly slipping away... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trampa501 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 I can almost feel any goodwill I may have generated on this thread, rapidly slipping away... Don't give it a seconds thought. You have to do your best for yourself and your family. Make good use of any advantage you can find - you would be quashed without a second thought by the system if you didn't exercise your leverage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Bear Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 You will interested in reading the Surrey thread under the south east section of this website. http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=178774&st=30 I agree with everything you say, house prices in Kingston, surrounding areas and Wimbledon etc. are unexplainably high Not unexplainable, at least not in Kingston - a large part of it's the schools. Several very good primaries, + 2 grammars that regularly come in the top 10 or 20 in the UK (state schools) for A level results. Many people move to Kingston because of the schools. Mind you their blithe optimism that their nice bright kids will walk into one of the grammars is often confounded. Competition is savage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mk1mini Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 There are 300,000 individuals who make over £150,000 a year in the UK, i.e. people who could afford to pay for a house in the range of £500k or above. 300,000 is not a very large number when you consider how many houses there are out there. I think this whole discussion simply underscores what a complete ponzi scheme housing has become in this country. Is that Inland Revenue incomes? If so there are a lot of contractors who earn big money through 'companies' yet only 'earn' just below the income tax threshold. Tax avoidance is big business (just ask those in power!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrowne Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Interesting thread, as 10 years back we took the decision to up sticks from a 3 bed in New Malden, after living in Kingston, Surbiton (St. Philips Road, no less!) and all around that area for the previous 15 years or so. I was working from home and we needed more room, but that was going to effectively double the cost of the house, which seemed madness. So we moved to Shropshire. And haven't regretted it at all. Looking at Zoopla, the estimated cost of our old house is £25k LESS than this one in Shropshire, despite costing about the same when we sold and moved up here. The estimated rental value of this house is also £200 more per month than the New Malden one. Also, in the last 10 years or so, someone has also paid for an extension of the New Malden house, a cost we haven't had to incur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheresitgoing Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 But when push comes to shove and children are in the offering, you have to discount your wife's salary to nothing [or I do anyway - she earns about £40k] (potential illness & complications / wanting to spend time bonding with children / opportunity cost of childcare)...... so you are down to 1 salary - and happy to take your base example of £100k plus bonuses etc. To buy said £700,000 house would therefore require a deposit of £140,000 and a mortgage payment of around £3,000 a month which is laughable. I do realise that the property example I gave is one of the extremes..... but, yes, if a couple want to work themselves both into the ground, never find the time to have and bring up children, never go on holiday, never save anything for a rainy day or retirement - then yes... i suppose those sort of places are affordable... dont give up on the wifes salary - she's obviously is in a good job. Have you checked her maternity benefits? how long before she loses full pay - some companies pay fully for 6 months. She could go back part time like my missus insisted on doing after being trapped at home for 6 months with a new born. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheresitgoing Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 This is a good point as well. One of the things that would worry me about making a big investment in the London suburbs now is what happens in 10-15 years time when (presumably) home working will become more prevalent and people live where they actually want to rather than where is convenient to commute from 5 days a week. Don't get me wrong, I love where I live now, and I'd not be ready to move out to a rural area yet, but it would be nice to know I could afford to do it in the future if I wanted to. The premium for living here is far higher than it should be, and most of that is because the ease of the commute. I know that London property seems like a power house now, but part of me thinks that this could shrink and we will be left with: 1. uber-expensive prime areas 2. Good suburbs like Surbiton will be cheap compared to the countryside 3. Enclaves like the private estates of Esher and Weybridge that will remain expensive but not command the premium they do now 4. A lot of the rest of it will be like the areas in the north where councils are selling off houses for £1 each because no one wants them. OK, maybe a bit extreme, but I can certainly see that house in Shropshire at £800k in 10 years time, and the Surbiton/Tolworth house at £500k which will mean a lot of people wouldn't be able to afford to make that move when the time comes. I've thought the same thing for the last 20 years back in the days when "WFH" was called telecommuting. But it has not materialised. How many typical office jobs can be done without at least one visit to the office per week? Anyone who is lucky to secure say Mon and Fri working from home but they still have to endure the crush on the other days. Allegedly a quarter of the city (100,000 jobs) has been fired and the ticket fare rises continue to be horrendous but still my London train is as crowded as ever. I think these days people all come into the office so that they can protect their jobs rather than WFH. I suspect that if you lived in the house in Shropshire or one in a rural SE location, you would find commuting a necessary evil and a complete (and expensive) pain with high rail costs, needing 2 cars in the family since one car will be sat in a station car park all day) which is why people continue to pay over the odds to cram themselves into what is a nice area like Surbiton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohreally Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Cheam village,nice but pricey. Belmont is good. If you want 'value' try south Wallington,houses there 10>15% less,very good schools too. Tolworth a dump,worcester park dull,but good commute into london. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worried1 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I've thought the same thing for the last 20 years back in the days when "WFH" was called telecommuting. But it has not materialised. How many typical office jobs can be done without at least one visit to the office per week? Anyone who is lucky to secure say Mon and Fri working from home but they still have to endure the crush on the other days. Allegedly a quarter of the city (100,000 jobs) has been fired and the ticket fare rises continue to be horrendous but still my London train is as crowded as ever. I think these days people all come into the office so that they can protect their jobs rather than WFH. I suspect that if you lived in the house in Shropshire or one in a rural SE location, you would find commuting a necessary evil and a complete (and expensive) pain with high rail costs, needing 2 cars in the family since one car will be sat in a station car park all day) which is why people continue to pay over the odds to cram themselves into what is a nice area like Surbiton. All good points. Because of the way rail season ticket pricing is structured, you would pay almost as much in a year for 2 or 3 peak time daily tickets a week as you would for a full annual pass Coming in from somewhere like Shropshire or Hampshire a few times a week could add up to £5k p.a. or more and double that if a couplr are trying to keep two London jobs going. That really does dwarf the already expensive cost of an annual season ticket from Surbiton which I think is about £1,300 p.a. The tipping point might come when the employers start trying to scale back their London office space due to the extreme cost of renting space in the City and West End. However, there is so much new build going on at the moment, that the commercial rents can only go one way once the landlords admit it to themselves, so that may not make a change either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicko75 Posted November 20, 2012 Author Share Posted November 20, 2012 All good points. Because of the way rail season ticket pricing is structured, you would pay almost as much in a year for 2 or 3 peak time daily tickets a week as you would for a full annual pass Coming in from somewhere like Shropshire or Hampshire a few times a week could add up to £5k p.a. or more and double that if a couplr are trying to keep two London jobs going. That really does dwarf the already expensive cost of an annual season ticket from Surbiton which I think is about £1,300 p.a. The tipping point might come when the employers start trying to scale back their London office space due to the extreme cost of renting space in the City and West End. However, there is so much new build going on at the moment, that the commercial rents can only go one way once the landlords admit it to themselves, so that may not make a change either. The WFH one is a real interesting one - I am almost certain that BOTH my productivity and quality of life would be better if I worked from home 2 days a week (head down, quiet, sorting stuff efficiently) with maybe 3 days in the office - meetings, sharing context, networking etc.... but there is the crux - i would fear (in my company at least due to it's sheer size) that if I was out of the office more than in, I would become invisible and my career would suffer as a result - missing opportunities, missing context, miss building relationships etc etc. It makes you wonder what on earth "work" is at all - when an increase in my productivity means I likely lose out in the long run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hail the Tripod Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I've thought the same thing for the last 20 years back in the days when "WFH" was called telecommuting. But it has not materialised. How many typical office jobs can be done without at least one visit to the office per week? Anyone who is lucky to secure say Mon and Fri working from home but they still have to endure the crush on the other days. Allegedly a quarter of the city (100,000 jobs) has been fired and the ticket fare rises continue to be horrendous but still my London train is as crowded as ever. I think these days people all come into the office so that they can protect their jobs rather than WFH. I suspect that if you lived in the house in Shropshire or one in a rural SE location, you would find commuting a necessary evil and a complete (and expensive) pain with high rail costs, needing 2 cars in the family since one car will be sat in a station car park all day) which is why people continue to pay over the odds to cram themselves into what is a nice area like Surbiton. It has. But it's cheaper to outsource to India or the Phillipines than to homeworkers in the UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.