Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Jack Chilli

Shared Ownership

Recommended Posts

I've been thinking about shared ownership. Does anyone think that there is an excuse for this against a potential hpc, as in, if you buy 50% and have the rest to buy whenever, should you so wish to, doesn't that mean that when a poss hpc happens, you wil potentially have an hpc protected asset when you buy the remainder? ie - if the property is £200k, you own £100k (50%) of it, it dips in value to £150k, you buy the remaining % for (the 50% eqivalent share) of £75k....So you end up buying it for 175....which at least is what it might be worth 'then'??? following this? Know what I mean?

I hate overvalued crap as much as I hate maths. Please enlighten me! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack Chilli,

Could be except the odl scheme has a.lready run out of mugs to buy and the new scheme will run out in just the same way.

Why pay double and get half a house? Even the thickest can see through that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about shared ownership. Does anyone think that there is an excuse for this against a potential hpc, as in, if you buy 50% and have the rest to buy whenever, should you so wish to, doesn't that mean that when a poss hpc happens, you wil potentially have an hpc protected asset when you buy the remainder? ie - if the property is £200k, you own £100k (50%) of it, it dips in value to £150k, you buy the remaining % for (the 50% eqivalent share) of £75k....So you end up buying it for 175....which at least is what it might be worth 'then'??? following this? Know what I mean?

I hate overvalued crap as much as I hate maths. Please enlighten me! :lol:

Good try mate. Thought about this one myself. You limit your liability. Eg. If the house you bought is worth 200K and you bought 50% for 100K (forget about deposits) Then you still owe 100K. If the value of the house drops to 150K then you still owe 100K, and you can buy the difference for 75K. That means that you paid 175K for 150Ks worth of house. Of course if you sell your share you then only loose 25K instead of 50K. Either way your 25K worse off. Better than 50K but worse than 0. Thats the logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good try mate. Thought about this one myself. You limit your liability. Eg. If the house you bought is worth 200K and you bought 50% for 100K (forget about deposits) Then you still owe 100K. If the value of the house drops to 150K then you still owe 100K, and you can buy the difference for 75K. That means that you paid 175K for 150Ks worth of house. Of course if you sell your share you then only loose 25K instead of 50K. Either way your 25K worse off. Better than 50K but worse than 0. Thats the logic.

No, it wouldn't be, it would still be 50% - so that's 75k. I'm not trying to be difficult, just weighing it up.

Edited by Jack Chilli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jack,

I think what Elizabeth means is that if you've bought half the house for £100K and your mortgage is £100K - the level of your mortgage will stay the same regardless of what the house is worth (just using these figures to illustrate a point... in reality you would be paying your mortgage off each month...)

Then if the house price drops and you chose to buy the remainder (using Elizabeth's figures) you would need to find and ADDITIONAL £75K. Thus total mortgage debt of £175K on a house worth £150K....

Does that help?

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack Chilli,

Could be except the odl scheme has a.lready run out of mugs to buy and the new scheme will run out in just the same way.

Why pay double and get half a house? Even the thickest can see through that one.

But that's not what I'm saying. whatever the input, it's a 50% (or 35% or 60%..whatever) share, each way. I mean you're paying for half a house, and when the other half goes down, you buy it and make it a whole house??? No???? Price 200k, 2005, 50% crash in '06/'07 or whatever, buy for 100k, already in with 50k paid, buy for an extra 50k - house that was 'worth' £200k 2005, bought for £100k in 06/07 or whatever. (with minimal rent inbetween - better then a flat out mortgage. F*** the interest rates).

No? Tell me, I know nuthing!

Yeah I know I say 'whatever' too much. :(

But that's not what I'm saying. whatever the input, it's a 50% (or 35% or 60%..whatever) share, each way. I mean you're paying for half a house, and when the other half goes down, you buy it and make it a whole house??? No???? Price 200k, 2005, 50% crash in '06/'07 or whatever, buy for 100k, already in with 50k paid, buy for an extra 50k - house that was 'worth' £200k 2005, bought for £100k in 06/07 or whatever. (with minimal rent inbetween - better then a flat out mortgage. F*** the interest rates).

No? Tell me, I know nuthing!

Yeah I know I say 'whatever' too much. :(

But that's not what I'm saying. whatever the input, it's a 50% (or 35% or 60%..whatever) share, each way. I mean you're paying for half a house, and when the other half goes down, you buy it and make it a whole house??? No???? Price 200k, 2005, 50% crash in '06/'07 or whatever, buy for 100k, already in with 50k paid, buy for an extra 50k - house that was 'worth' £200k 2005, bought for £100k in 06/07 or whatever. (with minimal rent inbetween - better then a flat out mortgage. F*** the interest rates).

No? Tell me, I know nuthing!

Yeah I know I say 'whatever' too much. :(

Price 200k, 2005, 50% crash in '06/'07 or whatever, buy for 100k, already in with 50k paid, buy for an extra 50k - house that was 'worth' £200k 2005, bought for £100k in 06/07 or whatever. (with minimal rent inbetween - better then a flat out mortgage. F*** the interest rates).

I meant bought for £150k.....maths aint my thing, but you know what I mean. Still saving £5ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK... So from what you've said above.

You know have paid £150K for something which is now worth £100K (assuming we are now in 2007, the crash has mostly happened and we're looking back...).

Agree that you have only lost £50K over buying the house completely where you would have lost £100K. You really cannot describe this as saving £50K... You sound like my ex going out and buying £500 on clothes in a half price sale and looking all shocked when I hit the roof - "But honey, I have *saved* £500!!"

:lol:

If the numbers don't make sense I apologise for not being clearer. With no mention of numbers at all - buying half an overpriced house is a really really bad idea.

But do what is right for you - I certainly wouldn't touch a scheme like this with a bargepole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's not what I'm saying. whatever the input, it's a 50% (or 35% or 60%..whatever) share, each way. I mean you're paying for half a house, and when the other half goes down, you buy it and make it a whole house??? No???? Price 200k, 2005, 50% crash in '06/'07 or whatever, buy for 100k, already in with 50k paid, buy for an extra 50k - house that was 'worth' £200k 2005, bought for £100k in 06/07 or whatever. (with minimal rent inbetween - better then a flat out mortgage. F*** the interest rates).

No? Tell me, I know nuthing!

Yeah I know I say 'whatever' too much. :(

Price 200k, 2005, 50% crash in '06/'07 or whatever, buy for 100k, already in with 50k paid, buy for an extra 50k - house that was 'worth' £200k 2005, bought for £100k in 06/07 or whatever. (with minimal rent inbetween - better then a flat out mortgage. F*** the interest rates).

I meant bought for £150k.....maths aint my thing, but you know what I mean. Still saving £5ok.

I think your getting confused here.

You own 50% of an asset worth 200K. You pay 100K for that asset and the Housing Association pays the other 100K. 100+100=200.

The value of the asset drops to 150K. You own 75K worth of asset. The housing association owns 75K worth of asset. 75+75=150.

If you wish to buy the other half, you don't pay 50K, you pay the housing association their half of the value. That is 75K.

Therefore, all up the cost of 100% of the value of the asset is 100K (your original purchase price) + 75K (the new value of the housing associations 1/2 share) = 175K.

The housing association owns a 75K asset (50% of the value of your house). They are not going to sell it to you for 50K just to be nice.

Maths is my thing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ousing associations 1/2 share) = 175K.

The housing association owns a 75K asset (50% of the value of your house). They are not going to sell it to you for 50K just to be nice.

Maths is my thing!

yeah but - yeah but - I'm still 25k 'better off' on the speculation, no?? (and ok, we all agree a hpc - but then things just might level and pick up, I'm talking a house here for me and my family, not as an investment) It's like going each way on a horse race, you don't get it on the nose, but still. Surely better than sticking everything on the nose??

I want your good help in deciding here, I trust you. Am I completely off kilter?

(Btw - reading another thread here - I passed by 7 EA's today, all empty - 50% 0f these, of any staff in the office!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ousing associations 1/2 share) = 175K.

The housing association owns a 75K asset (50% of the value of your house). They are not going to sell it to you for 50K just to be nice.

Maths is my thing!

yeah but - yeah but - I'm still 25k 'better off' on the speculation, no?? (and ok, we all agree a hpc - but then things just might level and pick up, I'm talking a house here for me and my family, not as an investment) It's like going each way on a horse race, you don't get it on the nose, but still. Surely better than sticking everything on the nose??

I want your good help in deciding here, I trust you. Am I completely off kilter?

(Btw - reading another thread here - I passed by 7 EA's today, all empty - 50% 0f these, of any staff in the office!)

Jack oh Jack oh Jack my son. I believe you are suffering what is known as cognitive dissonance! You really want this place don't you? Its a way to have your very own home at something akin to what you can afford. Your almost prepared to allow yourself to be a classic dumb blonde in pursuit of this fabulous lovely home. Am I right? But something stops you. Your forthought and reason realises that their is something iffy about the deal with your lovely home.

You will LOSE 25K. If you like it that much and are prepared to loose anything from 25-50K then go for it. But if your asset has a value of 150K and you pay 175K all up, don't kid yourself your making a financial win. And do remember what that 50K would mean to your pension plan. I know its hard, but it doesn't have to be just yet (unless you have some overriding reason like there's a little Jack on the way or something)

EDIT:

And don't forget, you own half the value, pay the 1/2 a social rent AND get to take responsibility for ALL the service charges if its a flat, and ALL the repairs. If its a 2 bd newbuild, see multiple strings on where they are going particularly (Thanks OnlyMe for reminding me). And when I say 25-50K loss, I don't want to complicate things because you have said that maths is not your strong point but that doesn't take account of the multiplier effect of the extra mortgage value. try 77-135K.

Edited by Elizabeth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack Chilli

What if your housing association won't let you sell the house for a loss? Rules change and you maybe crytsalizing their loss, if there is a lender involved who is supposedly going to stump up for the lossess they may have a few tricks up their sleeve too. Could all get horribly complicated.

What if your housing association doesn't like your purchaser? Can they stop a sale going through on those grounds - they are effectively renting out their share to the poteital new owner.

More likely, once prices have fallen what is the likelihood of nobody wanting to buy your house in the first place - who the hell wants to buy and still effectively be left renting? Half-houses will be like studio flats during a downturn, nobody wants them, the only time they sell well is in booms times when pelple can;t afford anything else.

Edited by OnlyMe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about shared ownership. Does anyone think that there is an excuse for this against a potential hpc, as in, if you buy 50% and have the rest to buy whenever, should you so wish to, doesn't that mean that when a poss hpc happens, you wil potentially have an hpc protected asset when you buy the remainder? ie - if the property is £200k, you own £100k (50%) of it, it dips in value to £150k, you buy the remaining % for (the 50% eqivalent share) of £75k....So you end up buying it for 175....which at least is what it might be worth 'then'??? following this? Know what I mean?

I hate overvalued crap as much as I hate maths. Please enlighten me! :lol:

Hi Jack,

This like many many similarly proposed transactions has endlessly been discussed at HPC. Sometimes I wonder what is the point of posting when they disappear down the page so quickly! But you will find numerous posts from the past which almost all express the view that the whole scheme is a complete con.

Even if you are not convinced by this, please keep in mind that shared ownership takes away all normal rights associated with normal possession. You are in effect a tenant, and there are grave difficulties selling if you wish to do so. You are enslaved to the scheme. Don't get me started on the valuations and financial arrangements. Essentially, you are getting half the value for nearly the same outlay as though you'd bought the entire equity, but you only own half.

In summary: A con, a scam, a burden not balanced by any advantage, especially in a static or falling market. Not worth the paper it's written on. As an aside, also the subject of many complaints that RICS and others over-value the properties involved so you the consumer are hoodwinked into believing the deal is good but in fact it is an opportunity for developers and councils to offload expensive properties masquerading as bargains. If I had the power I would sue every single local council which promoted this scam. They are taking the mickey. And if this doesn't convince you, every word uttered by others advising you here is true, and if anything they are being too polite. The whole scheme is a fraud.

VP

Edited by VacantPossession

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add my two pence here.....

After much lurking (over 12 months) I have decided to sign up!

Shared Ownership is a right pain. As my username might suggest I am involved with this at the sharp end.....

I half understand what is being asked by the originator of this thread - you may have the ability to minimise your losses and buy back the remaining shares at the newly post crash/re-alignment price.....so sort of understand the thrust of the post/thread.

The poster who mentioned the being restricted in re-sale..........you are only half right. Most schemes allow for 4 weeks for the Housing Association/Local Authority to market/find a suitable buyer. After that period the vendor is able to approach the estate agents directly to market the property (ever wondered why such shared ownership properties find their way onto Rightmove?).

I do detest shared ownership (SO). It is a way for developers to avoid providing social rented properties which are really needed. In my area of work SO properties would only enable 5-10% (at best) of my clients to find suitable housing. However, the developers would like all the social housing to be SO as it is more profitable and also more palatable. However, one of the problems is that the Housing Associations have to bid for land against private developers and to make the whole scheme stack up (to enable some social rented) they have to be able to raise the funds and SO is one way of doing this.

Add in the whole farce of what defines "Affordable" in plannning guidance (this is changing) and you are openingup Pandora's box........

The downsides of SO by the way - you may only own 25% of the property but if the boiler goes up the spout you "own" 100% of the cost..... makes you think of what a great deal you have got. In addition the whole client group that SO was meant to help (low income families who Gov't wanted to have a stake in property and look after social housing and create more balanced/happier communities who could never normally buy property) are no longer able to afford these schemes. These families have been replaced by the families/individuals who would have normally been able to buy on the open market (traditional first time buyers). SO has just tried to prop up an already screwed up market..... caveat empor and avoid like hell.

Social Houser!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Social Houser,

Only too happy to be put right on the 4 week sale rule. Welcome aboard, sounds like you may have some unique experience to add to the site.

Only 25% - you are kidding? That's absurd, who in their right mind would sign up for that sort of deal. Like you say, doesn't take too much gumption to work out for whose benefit such a scheme is meant for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. You are in effect a tenant, and there are grave difficulties selling if you wish to do so. You are enslaved to the scheme. Don't get me started on the valuations and financial arrangements. Essentially, you are getting half the value for nearly the same outlay as though you'd bought the entire equity, but you only own half.

If I put 50% down, I'd be paying £100k at a rate of £250-ish a month, and I can buy further equity as and when. If I was paying a mortgae of 50k, it'd be the same money. If I live there and am trying to get on with life - what's the difseems better to be paying half of a 100k loan, on paper - an interest only mortgage where the lender is in effect your landlord, with the aqdded potential of % rises. If i could put 50% down in cash, are you saying I'd be any better off with a mortgage? Agree on the difficulties with selling and enslavement, but isn't it just to another ogre?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only me,

Thanks for the welcome. 25% is the real starting point, You can own more than this and "staircase" up (buy more shares). Only problem with this is the fees you incur each time you staircase up.......

Yep, I work in the South East for a Local Authority and work on special projects in Housing and analyse Housing Need as part of my job.

I currently rent and this site is a great find for me - it confirms all I can see that is wrong. We are seeing more homelessness applications from people with reposessions and I can see far more coming in 2006 (analysing the court records shows me this - re-possesssions that will proceed after proceedings halted for a while prior to Xmas).

It is going to get seriously messy - Shared Ownership is merely a smokescreen to try and hide the issue of affordability. The Gov't should serioulsy stop trying to find ways of creating "affordability". If people cannot afford the traditional 3X price then something is wrong....... I don't try and tackle the issue of me buying a 993 Porsche Turbo by excessive financial trickery..... I just realise I can't afford one and settle for the Teg Type R I currently drive.....

Rant over

SH

Edited by Social Houser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only me,

Thanks for the welcome. 25% is the real starting point, You can own more than this and "staircase" up (buy more shares). Only problem with this is the fees you incur each time you staircase up.......

Yep, I work in the South East for a Local Authority and work on special projects in Housing and analyse Housing Need as part of my job.

I currently rent and this site is a great find for me - it confirms all I can see that is wrong. We are seeing more homelessness applications from people with reposessions and I can see far more coming in 2006 (analysing the court records shows me this - re-possesssions that will proceed after proceedings halted for a while prior to Xmas).

It is going to get seriously messy - Shared Ownership is merely a smokescreen to try and hide the issue of affordability. The Gov't should serioulsy stop trying to find ways of creating "affordability". If people cannot afford the traditional 3X price then something is wrong....... I don't try and tackle the issue of me buying a 993 Porsche Turbo by excessive financial trickery..... I just realise I can't afford one and settle for the Teg Type R I currently drive.....

Rant over

SH

Interesting stuff from someone at the "Coal Face" so to speak.Point taken about the gov't and affordability. Prices will eventually crash under their own weight thus producing that affordability anyway. All it takes is a bit of time. Government should butt out.Their cranky schemes just seem to be attempts at using an elastoplast to patch up an enormous laceration!

And as for residential property, fine wines or classic cars in a SIPPs...who the hell dreamt that one up? Classic example of their lack of ideas, experience & competence though.

I nearly signed up with Moat Housing S.O. but realised, after much careful thought & number crunching, that i could be catching a falling knife! Happy to rent now for the foreseeable future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the other 50% isnt free -

you would pay for it for the rest of your life.

wheres the deal in paying twice ?

i dont get 50-50 schemes.

(social-houser. some nice info there. refreshing post. thx.)

Edited by right_freds_dead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. You are in effect a tenant, and there are grave difficulties selling if you wish to do so. You are enslaved to the scheme. Don't get me started on the valuations and financial arrangements. Essentially, you are getting half the value for nearly the same outlay as though you'd bought the entire equity, but you only own half.

If I put 50% down, I'd be paying £100k at a rate of £250-ish a month, and I can buy further equity as and when. If I was paying a mortgae of 50k, it'd be the same money. If I live there and am trying to get on with life - what's the difseems better to be paying half of a 100k loan, on paper - an interest only mortgage where the lender is in effect your landlord, with the aqdded potential of % rises. If i could put 50% down in cash, are you saying I'd be any better off with a mortgage? Agree on the difficulties with selling and enslavement, but isn't it just to another ogre?

Well, maybe you know this, but it appears that you forgot one thing: You STILL have to pay RENT for the half you didn't purchase. Example: You buy 50% of 200k for 100k and your mortgage payments are say £7 for each 1k borrowed. That's £700 per month mortgage. But you still have to pay rent on the bit you didn't buy. This is crucial. Most schemes pretend that you are paying under-market rent, but that was in the good old days. Currently you ARE paying market rent because rents have come down. So you will pay between £350 and £500 rent IN ADDITION to your mortgaged part.

But your mortgaged portion does NOT entitle you to the same control you would have if you purchased the entire house. And the total amount you pay equals £700 plus say £400 plus the usual extras like insurance, maintenance and other expenses. The total is likely to be not much less than if you had purchased the ENTIRE property on a mortgage, but you only get HALF the equity. Furthermore, you are already being ripped of because 99 times out of a hundred the VALUATION will be far in excess of market value.

So, you will be in negative equity before you even move in, and you are deemed to have the same status as a tenant since the tenancy part of the scheme over-rides your equity interest. You will have difficulty selling because you have to go through the scheme's administrators, and your rights are restricted because you are not taking full ownership. You would be better off stretching the mortgage to include the whole value at market prices.

OR....you could simply rent which at the moment is infinitely better value.

What can I say....you seem unconvinced even after several posts advising you against it....one from a bloke who actually deals with the scheme directly. There are ten or twenty other posts with equally devastating criticisms in past threads here, and the council of mortgage lenders, itself a vested interest, has severely censured RICS for fiddling a multitude of Shared Ownership valuations.

There's little more anyone can do if you are determined. But don't blame this forum if it goes pair shaped.

your house it at risk if you believe all the VI spin being thrown around

VP

Edited by VacantPossession

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OLD FTB,

Yep renting is the new rock and roll. As Right Fred (love your posts!) has said the other half ain't free (normally rent based - some are with claims on any capital appreciation in future - a past phenomenon!).

More often than not these schemes are more expensive than traditional open market shcemes, but the apps are able to secure the funding for the mortgage element based on their salaries; i.e if you earn 30K and you are applying 3* multiples you can afford a 180K property based on a 50% share (rent on top mind!). This is an oversimplistic example but shows the issue that suurrounds such schemes and the illusion of affordabity.

Mushroom........ unfortunately not.

I have owned the motor since 1999 (1 owner from new) and have covered 95,000 miles from new both on and off the track......... I know my motor very well (plus a work background of driving 911s and Ferraris- how the hell did I end up in housing!!!???). The terrorist leader from Team America assures me - he likes my balls......

SH

Edited by Social Houser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mushroom........ unfortunately not.

I have owned the motor since 1999 (1 owner from new) and have covered 95,000 miles from new both on and off the track......... I know my motor very well (plus a work background of driving 911s and Ferraris- how the hell did I end up in housing!!!???). The terrorist leader from Team America assures me - he likes my balls......

SH

Just my little tease to see if you might visit some of the motoring sites that indulge in such petty rivalries.

Not really my normal way.

Welcome though as others have said and we look forward to further posts from you that will hopefully enlighten the members about an area that is not often debated.

What folk might quiz you about is whether you envisage HAs buying up large numbers of the one and two bedroomed flats if they become a casualty of oversupply in the private market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could have sworn I read something along the lines of the cunning new plan being that the FTB was to find 75% of the purchase price with the government and Building Society owning the two other shares of 12.5% each BUT and here's the important bit - I'm sure I read that in the event of the property devaluing the Government was to take the first hit In other words (the way I understood it) you could if you chose buy a property and if it goes up fine and dandy - you own 75% of a more valuable property BUT - if you keep an eye on the market and realise it is going down - you could whack it on the market - sell it for 87% of what you paid for it (if you can)- the government would stand the 12.5% loss and you and the building society would be no better or worse off (apart from sundry costs of course) In other words you get a government backed 12.5% buffer (assuming the price you buy at is a real market value and not set by GB) against falling HPI

I am pretty sure I read and understood this but can't remember where as it does not affect me - did anyone else get this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What can I say....you seem unconvinced even after several posts advising you against it....one from a bloke who actually deals with the scheme directly. There are ten or twenty other posts with equally devastating criticisms in past threads here, and the council of mortgage lenders, itself a vested interest, has severely censured RICS for fiddling a multitude of Shared Ownership valuations.

There's little more anyone can do if you are determined. But don't blame this forum if it goes pair shaped.

Listen, I'm not convinced at all and I really appreciate all the replies. I'm just asking a question, and now I think I get the answer. Thanks for that. I'm renting right now and I must admit, feel quite footloose and fancy free, but having divorced recently and having young kids to also share ownership of - I'm weighing up options. Just thought maybe SO was a way out of buying 100% of something that will dive in value. I still think my sums are okay, if a bit iffy, but I do so hate all that just being a tenant stuff after forking out hard dosh - borrowed or otherwise. I remember years ago when some dodgy acquaintances used to 'sell' keys to hideous council flats in Kings Cross for 5k a go, like rolling stock for travellers/migrant workers from NZ and Oz etc - it soundls a bit like a legal version of that. But a lot more than 5k.

I could have sworn I read something along the lines of the cunning new plan being that the FTB was to find 75% of the purchase price with the government and Building Society owning the two other shares of 12.5% each BUT and here's the important bit - I'm sure I read that in the event of the property devaluing the Government was to take the first hit In other words (the way I understood it) you could if you chose buy a property and if it goes up fine and dandy - you own 75% of a more valuable property BUT - if you keep an eye on the market and realise it is going down - you could whack it on the market - sell it for 87% of what you paid for it (if you can)- the government would stand the 12.5% loss and you and the building society would be no better or worse off (apart from sundry costs of course) In other words you get a government backed 12.5% buffer (assuming the price you buy at is a real market value and not set by GB) against falling HPI

I am pretty sure I read and understood this but can't remember where as it does not affect me - did anyone else get this?

TELL ME MORE!!!! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.