Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Marina

Hips (again)

Recommended Posts

Further to lots of discussion on these thought I would put forward this hypothesis.

My starting point is our own little world view. I live on a modern housing estate. The houses are less than 20 years old and in pretty good nick.

Went up to London yesterday and my little world view expanded a bit and I remembered there is a huge amount of old housing stock in this country. Much of it - even in expensive bits of London - is visibly 'tired' - chimneys need pointing, couple of roof tiles slipped or cracked - ridge tiles need re-pointing, barge boards, soffits and fascias need painting, windows need a once over etc. i.e. the majority of houses are not all in excellent condition.

Why do people move? Or, more importantly, how many people HAVE to move? I have no numbers but I would suggest most moves (let's say more than 50%) are done on the 'let's see if we can move one rung up the ladder basis'. i.e. A significant number of moves are not because of a job move or a death or a divorce etc - they are someone trading up.

At the moment you get the wallies round, they price up your house and put it on the market - and it costs you precisely nothing. You see how much you are offered, work out how much extra you can afford to borrow, and look for your next house - which has also probably been put on the market by someone testing the water.

Now let's fast forward to June 2007. Now when you want to sell your house you have to PAY (say somewhere between £500 and £1000) for a HIP. Even if the wally says 'Don't worry - we get the HIP done for you - and you pay for it when you sell' - or even, as some of the wallies are going to do, 'Don't worry - the HIP is included in our commission' - you can bet every Estate Agent sale contract will include the clause 'IF YOU PULL OUT OF THE SALE FOR ANY REASON YOU ARE LIABLE TO US FOR THE COST OF THE HIP' - we all know EAs are, to some extent, brain dead as evidenced by their business model - but even they are not going to get caught for the price of a HIP if a deal falls flat.

So, typical conversation now:

'We really could do with an extra bedroom ...'

'Okay, get the agents round, let's see what this place is worth - then we can see if can afford to move up'

'Agents said we'll get £295k'

'ok, we can afford another 50k on the mortgage - stick it on the market and start looking up to 345k'

Typical conversation in June 2007

'We really could do with an extra bedroom ...'

'Okay, get the agents round, let's see what this place is worth - then we can see if can afford to move up'

'Agents said we'll get £295k - but there is a new law that says we have to get a Home Information Pack - it's going to cost £750 and it includes a Home Condition report'

'Who pays for this HIP?'

'We do, but two of the agents said they would pay for it and then we would pay it when we sell. Another one said it is included in their commission - but they are 0.5% more than the other two. They all said if we take the property off the market we have to pay them for the HIP.'

'What does the Home Condition report cover?'

'Well, everything apparently, it is a report on the condition of the whole property'

'Before we waste money on one of these HIPs, we'll have to get the outside painted - and the window to the downstairs loo really needs replacing. Otherwise potential buyers will look at the HIP and we'll either get no viewings or we'll get knocked down a lot on our price. Tell you what, let's wait until next year.'

I reckon HIPs are going to completely decimate the market. A lot of people who have work to do on their houses just won't be bothered - and it will cut the number of properties on the market significantly. This may well have the added bonus of driving up prices.

To be fair to the wallies, lots of them - and their trade association, the NAEA, have been telling the government this for years. But the ODPM, let by the charmless John Prescott, think they know more about the pshychology of selling houses than the people who do it for a living. Lots of egg on face coming the ODPM's way on this one.

Edited by Marina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I reckon HIPs are going to completely decimate the market. A lot of people who have work to do on their houses just won't be bothered - and it will cut the number of properties on the market significantly. This may well have the added bonus of driving up prices.

I can forsee lots of people wanting to try and sell their house befor HIPS comes into effect. Thus we could see a spike in supply, which, in the absence of an increase in demand, means downward presssure on prices, in a normal market anyway...

IMHO :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reckon HIPs are going to completely decimate the market. A lot of people who have work to do on their houses just won't be bothered - and it will cut the number of properties on the market significantly. This may well have the added bonus of driving up prices.

But you have cut the demand by the exact same amount as the supply. So there will probably be no difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you have cut the demand by the exact same amount as the supply. So there will probably be no difference.

Not so. In a 'normal' property market in a typical property chain you have a new entrant to the market at the bottom and someone leaving the market at the top.

If half the properties in the market suddenly disappeared from the market - you would still have the same number at the bottom trying to buy for the first time. So - much smaller market - same number of buyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to lots of discussion on these thought I would put forward this hypothesis.

My starting point is our own little world view. I live on a modern housing estate. The houses are less than 20 years old and in pretty good nick.

Went up to London yesterday and my little world view expanded a bit and I remembered there is a huge amount of old housing stock in this country. Much of it - even in expensive bits of London - is visibly 'tired' - chimneys need pointing, couple of roof tiles slipped or cracked - ridge tiles need re-pointing, barge boards, soffits and fascias need painting, windows need a once over etc. i.e. the majority of houses are not all in excellent condition.

Why do people move? Or, more importantly, how many people HAVE to move? I have no numbers but I would suggest most moves (let's say more than 50%) are done on the 'let's see if we can move one rung up the ladder basis'. i.e. A significant number of moves are not because of a job move or a death or a divorce etc - they are someone trading up.

At the moment you get the wallies round, they price up your house and put it on the market - and it costs you precisely nothing. You see how much you are offered, work out how much extra you can afford to borrow, and look for your next house - which has also probably been put on the market by someone testing the water.

Now let's fast forward to June 2007. Now when you want to sell your house you have to PAY (say somewhere between £500 and £1000) for a HIP. Even if the wally says 'Don't worry - we get the HIP done for you - and you pay for it when you sell' - or even, as some of the wallies are going to do, 'Don't worry - the HIP is included in our commission' - you can bet every Estate Agent sale contract will include the clause 'IF YOU PULL OUT OF THE SALE FOR ANY REASON YOU ARE LIABLE TO US FOR THE COST OF THE HIP' - we all know EAs are, to some extent, brain dead as evidenced by their business model - but even they are not going to get caught for the price of a HIP if a deal falls flat.

So, typical conversation now:

'We really could do with an extra bedroom ...'

'Okay, get the agents round, let's see what this place is worth - then we can see if can afford to move up'

'Agents said we'll get £295k'

'ok, we can afford another 50k on the mortgage - stick it on the market and start looking up to 345k'

Typical conversation in June 2007

'We really could do with an extra bedroom ...'

'Okay, get the agents round, let's see what this place is worth - then we can see if can afford to move up'

'Agents said we'll get £295k - but there is a new law that says we have to get a Home Information Pack - it's going to cost £750 and it includes a Home Condition report'

'Who pays for this HIP?'

'We do, but two of the agents said they would pay for it and then we would pay it when we sell. Another one said it is included in their commission - but they are 0.5% more than the other two. They all said if we take the property off the market we have to pay them for the HIP.'

'What does the Home Condition report cover?'

'Well, everything apparently, it is a report on the condition of the whole property'

'Before we waste money on one of these HIPs, we'll have to get the outside painted - and the window to the downstairs loo really needs replacing. Otherwise potential buyers will look at the HIP and we'll either get no viewings or we'll get knocked down a lot on our price. Tell you what, let's wait until next year.'

I reckon HIPs are going to completely decimate the market. A lot of people who have work to do on their houses just won't be bothered - and it will cut the number of properties on the market significantly. This may well have the added bonus of driving up prices.

To be fair to the wallies, lots of them - and their trade association, the NAEA, have been telling the government this for years. But the ODPM, let by the charmless John Prescott, think they know more about the pshychology of selling houses than the people who do it for a living. Lots of egg on face coming the ODPM's way on this one.

Not sure I follow this argument. If there is work needing doing on a house, then surely people will worry about that now, without HIPS? After all, potential buyers will have a survey done just as they always have, and that will expose latent problems; what difference does it make that the owner is now having to pay for the survey? The price of houses can and always has been vulnerable to being knocked down if there is work needing to be done, like exterior paint work, new kitchen required etc. Why will HIPS make that aspect of the process any different? I accept that now the owner has to actually think about whether they are serious about selling, rather than just putting it on the market to get a warm glow about how much their "asset" is "worth", but those people presumably wouldn't sell anyway? At the moment, I still need to be convinced that HIPS will have much of an effect. After all, are people really going to be deterred by another 500 or 1000 pound cost on moving house, given the crazy way people decided what they can "afford" at the moment? I somehow doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I follow this argument. If there is work needing doing on a house, then surely people will worry about that now, without HIPS? No, people stick houses on the market and hope the buyer will not have an in-depth survey done. After all, potential buyers will have a survey done just as they always have, I read the statistic somewhere the other day - can't remember where - think it said only 1 in 10 buyers have a structural survey done.and that will expose latent problems; Building Society valuation surveys are not designed to expose latent problems - all the documentation on HIPs acknowledges that the Home Condition Report will be far more revealing than the typical Home Buyers Report commisioned with the lender's valuation survey. what difference does it make that the owner is now having to pay for the survey? The price of houses can and always has been vulnerable to being knocked down if there is work needing to be done, like exterior paint work, new kitchen required etc. Why will HIPS make that aspect of the process any different? Because now that is all spelt out to the buyer before they even view the property - they are not going to waste time looking at properties - they will look at the HIP and think 'No thanks, I'll find a house that does not need all that work.' I accept that now the owner has to actually think about whether they are serious about selling, rather than just putting it on the market to get a warm glow about how much their "asset" is "worth", but those people presumably wouldn't sell anyway? Yes they would. I have done it nearly every time I have moved. Tested the market, got a buyer and thought - 'okay, might as well get on with it.' At the moment, I still need to be convinced that HIPS will have much of an effect. After all, are people really going to be deterred by another 500 or 1000 pound cost on moving house, given the crazy way people decided what they can "afford" at the moment? I somehow doubt it. I think they will - as I said in my original post, I believe the majority of house moves are done, to some extent, on a whim. If the house sale falls through - that £500 to £1000 is real money - not money lost in the costs of moving.

Edited by Marina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I follow this argument. If there is work needing doing on a house, then surely people will worry about that now, without HIPS? No, people stick houses on the market and hope the buyer will not have an in-depth survey done. After all, potential buyers will have a survey done just as they always have, I read the statistic somewhere the other day - can't remember where - think it said only 1 in 10 buyers have a structural survey done.and that will expose latent problems; Building Society valuation surveys are not designed to expose latent problems - all the documentation on HIPs acknowledges that the Home Condition Report will be far more revealing than the typical Home Buyers Report commisioned with the lender's valuation survey. what difference does it make that the owner is now having to pay for the survey? The price of houses can and always has been vulnerable to being knocked down if there is work needing to be done, like exterior paint work, new kitchen required etc. Why will HIPS make that aspect of the process any different? Because now that is all spelt out to the buyer before they even view the property - they are not going to waste time looking at properties - they will look at the HIP and think 'No thanks, I'll find a house that does not need all that work.' I accept that now the owner has to actually think about whether they are serious about selling, rather than just putting it on the market to get a warm glow about how much their "asset" is "worth", but those people presumably wouldn't sell anyway? Yes they would. I have done it nearly every time I have moved. Tested the market, got a buyer and thought - 'okay, might as well get on with it.' At the moment, I still need to be convinced that HIPS will have much of an effect. After all, are people really going to be deterred by another 500 or 1000 pound cost on moving house, given the crazy way people decided what they can "afford" at the moment? I somehow doubt it. I think they will - as I said in my original post, I believe the majority of house moves are done, to some extent, on a whim.

Good Heavens: only 1 in 10 have a structural survey done! I really don't understand people. The most expensive thing people buy, and they don't get it checked. I bet they spend more time checking the quality of the baked beans they buy if they don't get a survey done.

I think you might have a point there about people looking at the HIPS report and deciding not to bother; I hadn't thought of that. I think people at the moment see a house, and then decide to buy it, and if they do review the goods on offer via a survey or whatever, it is more like a justification to themselves rather than an objective consideration. If it happens the other way around, then the "brochure" aspect of a HIPS report will swing the whole thing around to how lovely people find the report to be, rather than how lovely they find walking around a house to be. Maybe this will make people more objective, or at least swayed more by negative findings in a report. Good point. Could be a lot of work for builders etc. generated by the need to get the HIPS report looking good!

I am surprised though that you say people sell on a whim. But if so, then why let 500 pounds change that? After all, they happily sign themselves up to paying off tens of thousands more than they probably need to at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I follow this argument. If there is work needing doing on a house, then surely people will worry about that now, without HIPS? After all, potential buyers will have a survey done just as they always have, and that will expose latent problems; what difference does it make that the owner is now having to pay for the survey? The price of houses can and always has been vulnerable to being knocked down if there is work needing to be done, like exterior paint work, new kitchen required etc. Why will HIPS make that aspect of the process any different? I accept that now the owner has to actually think about whether they are serious about selling, rather than just putting it on the market to get a warm glow about how much their "asset" is "worth", but those people presumably wouldn't sell anyway? At the moment, I still need to be convinced that HIPS will have much of an effect. After all, are people really going to be deterred by another 500 or 1000 pound cost on moving house, given the crazy way people decided what they can "afford" at the moment? I somehow doubt it.

I don't think people look at surveys in the context of the house value. The see it as cash out of their wallet. I friend of mine bought a house back in 2002ish after getting a full survey which revealed damp in the basement. They asked for a reduction - didn't get it. By this time they've shelled out over £1500 in fees - so they bought at the original offer price anyway. The fact that the house was costing £195K didn't diminish the amount already spent on fees.

Similarly, with HIPs the seller will see it as a large amount of money potentially lost if the sale doesn't go through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think people look at surveys in the context of the house value. The see it as cash out of their wallet. I friend of mine bought a house back in 2002ish after getting a full survey which revealed damp in the basement. They asked for a reduction - didn't get it. By this time they've shelled out over £1500 in fees - so they bought at the original offer price anyway. The fact that the house was costing £195K didn't diminish the amount already spent on fees.

Similarly, with HIPs the seller will see it as a large amount of money potentially lost if the sale doesn't go through.

Why did your friend get a survey done if he wasn't going to adjust what he thought was reasonable on the outcome of the survey? Presumably he thought 195K was the right price for the house in a problem free state? If so, then presumably he thought that 195K was too much for the same house with the problem? If so, why did he buy it anyway? Surely you don't mean that because he spent 1.5K on fees including the survey presumably he thought he didn't want to "waste" the 1.5K? If that was the case, then presumably the cost of putting right the damp must have been small or comparable to 1.5K?

So unless the cost of correcting the damp was comparable to 1.5K, then did he not effectively cave in and pay more for the house than he thought was reasonable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did your friend get a survey done if he wasn't going to adjust what he thought was reasonable on the outcome of the survey? Presumably he thought 195K was the right price for the house in a problem free state? If so, then presumably he thought that 195K was too much for the same house with the problem? If so, why did he buy it anyway? Surely you don't mean that because he spent 1.5K on fees including the survey presumably he thought he didn't want to "waste" the 1.5K? If that was the case, then presumably the cost of putting right the damp must have been small or comparable to 1.5K?

So unless the cost of correcting the damp was comparable to 1.5K, then did he not effectively cave in and pay more for the house than he thought was reasonable?

He may have considered the hassle factor of starting from scratch not worth the effort, as well as the lost money. After all, prices were rising fast at the time (15-20% yoy), so he probably thought it not worthwhile looking for somewhere and perhaps paying £5K more for similar anyway.

Prices aren't rising fast anymore today though. That "can't afford to miss the boat" feeling isn't so strong at the moment.

Also, if the seller had shelled out for the survey, my friend would have been more inclined to make a lower offer in the first place which took the damp into account. And if the offer was refused, he could just walk away and look elsewhere, having expended no emotional energy and no cash whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it'll be tucked into the small print that people have to pay the HIP survey fees at sale or if they take the house off...

But do you just think people will keep the houses on the market forever?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Further to lots of discussion on these thought I would put forward this hypothesis.

[....]

The thing you forget is the seller will save on their next purchase. If the seller would still be put off by the HIP cost, or should I say paying the HIP cost if they can't sell, they are clearly not serious sellers and are time wasters - which the market can do without.

I think HIPs would be a good thing for the market!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reckon HIPs are going to completely decimate the market. A lot of people who have work to do on their houses just won't be bothered - and it will cut the number of properties on the market significantly. This may well have the added bonus of driving up prices.

First, it will have difficulty driving up prices if people cannot afford to buy the houses.

But there is one thing here that I think people are missing. I'm sure that HIPs will reduce the number of houses for sale because people won't go "kite flying" and put their property on for whatever they can get. That won't affect the market, because overpriced properties will not sell very often, so the number of properties that really are available where the seller really wants to sell will not be reduced by the same proportion.

But people interested in moving house may be put off because of the additional expense. So, the number of properties sold will reduce. Now, who suffers most from reduced sales? Estate agents. So, if the number of houses sold goes down, Estate agents go to the wall. What will Estate agents do if not enough houses are being sold to keep them in business? Work on getting more houses sold. So they work on sellers to get prices reduced to the point where buyers will buy, and/or they work on buyers to get them to buy at higher prices than they otherwise would. Can they really get buyers to buy at prices higher than they are now? Looks tricky. That only leaves...

Billy Shears

The thing you forget is the seller will save on their next purchase. If the seller would still be put off by the HIP cost, or should I say paying the HIP cost if they can't sell, they are clearly not serious sellers and are time wasters - which the market can do without.

I think HIPs would be a good thing for the market!

That's assuming that mortgage lenders will be prepared to lend people money based on the seller's survey. An estate agent I spoke to said that she did not believe that this would happen. Remember the troubles with surveys on newbuild flats validating the pre-discount price?

Billy Shears

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's assuming that mortgage lenders will be prepared to lend people money based on the seller's survey. An estate agent I spoke to said that she did not believe that this would happen. Remember the troubles with surveys on newbuild flats validating the pre-discount price?

Billy Shears

But don't mortgage companies only require a valuation survey, which isn't included in the HIP anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But don't mortgage companies only require a valuation survey, which isn't included in the HIP anyway?

Hmm.... I see your point. So the buyer only saves money if they take the seller's survey at face value. If the seller's survey was inaccurate could they sue the surveyor?

In any case, the buyer can only save money by accepting what appears to be a higher risk.

Billy Shears

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm.... I see your point. So the buyer only saves money if they take the seller's survey at face value. If the seller's survey was inaccurate could they sue the surveyor?

In any case, the buyer can only save money by accepting what appears to be a higher risk.

Billy Shears

So far, I can see two problems with HIPs, the problem with who do you sue if it is wrong and will there be enough surveyors. Currently if you did not pay for the survey you cannot sue the surveyors, hence you should never rely on another buyers survey (hopefully some 'strong' guidlines will be introduced).

Edited by Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far, I can see two problems with HIPs, the problem with who do you sue if it is wrong and will there be enough surveyors. Currently if you did not pay for the survey you cannot sue the surveyors, hence you should never rely on another buyers survey (hopefully some 'strong' guidlines will be introduced).

Could you sue the sellers who presented you with the survey, and then the sellers would have to sue the company that did the survey?

Billy Shears

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been a lot of talk on this one, maily from VI's who will lose their seat at the trough.

In the long run I don't think HIPS will have much impact at all.

People will come to term with the new responsibilities and accept it as a normal part of buying a house.

In the end, you will sell if you want to move. Otherwise you won't. Same as now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been a lot of talk on this one, maily from VI's who will lose their seat at the trough.

In the long run I don't think HIPS will have much impact at all.

People will come to term with the new responsibilities and accept it as a normal part of buying a house.

In the end, you will sell if you want to move. Otherwise you won't. Same as now.

HIPS is the best thing thats ever happened to this flawed dishonest process we have in this country. I never thought anything good would come out of New Labour but it would seem I was wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been a lot of talk on this one, maily from VI's who will lose their seat at the trough.

In the long run I don't think HIPS will have much impact at all.

People will come to term with the new responsibilities and accept it as a normal part of buying a house. It will be a normal part of SELLING a house - it means, for the first time, sellers are definitely going to pay something if they put their house on the market at a 'test the market' price and it does not sell. The agents will have time limits in their contracts. At the moment vendors can do this scot free.

In the end, you will sell if you want to move. Otherwise you won't. Same as now. I still maintain a lot of people put their house on the market to test the market and, when they get an offer, get serious about it. A good number of people will not enter the market when HIPs comes along - especially if, on top of the HIPs, they have to fork out a couple of grand tarting the place up. When HIPs are introduced, buyers will be able to see what needs doing before putting an offer in.

In the long run I think HIPs will have a huge impact - they may even have to be withdrawn.

First, it will have difficulty driving up prices if people cannot afford to buy the houses. House prices are set at the margin. If you have 50 would be FTBs who want to buy in a town and there are 10 suitable properties on the market - the price will be determined by what the top 10 earners amongst those 50 earn (or can borrow). If you only have 5 suitable properties on the market - the price will be determined by what the top 5 earners amongst the 50 earn. This is why, when the supply in the market is tight, prices rise. This is why good properties in good areas always command a premium. The market automatically settles at what those who can afford to pay the most can afford to pay.

But there is one thing here that I think people are missing. I'm sure that HIPs will reduce the number of houses for sale because people won't go "kite flying" and put their property on for whatever they can get. That won't affect the market, because overpriced properties will not sell very often, so the number of properties that really are available where the seller really wants to sell will not be reduced by the same proportion.

But people interested in moving house may be put off because of the additional expense. So, the number of properties sold will reduce. Now, who suffers most from reduced sales? Estate agents. So, if the number of houses sold goes down, Estate agents go to the wall. What will Estate agents do if not enough houses are being sold to keep them in business? Work on getting more houses sold. So they work on sellers to get prices reduced to the point where buyers will buy, and/or they work on buyers to get them to buy at higher prices than they otherwise would. Can they really get buyers to buy at prices higher than they are now? Looks tricky. That only leaves...

Billy Shears

That's assuming that mortgage lenders will be prepared to lend people money based on the seller's survey. An estate agent I spoke to said that she did not believe that this would happen. Remember the troubles with surveys on newbuild flats validating the pre-discount price?

Billy Shears

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the long run I think HIPs will have a huge impact - they may even have to be withdrawn.

Marina, in the mean time ypu have speculative house sellers sucking in people who shell out fees for surveys searches etc only to be told that the vendor is taking the property off the market . Is this good ??

I think not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marina, in the mean time ypu have speculative house sellers sucking in people who shell out fees for surveys searches etc only to be told that the vendor is taking the property off the market . Is this good ??

I think not

I am not defending the current arrangement - it is an appalling rip off of buyers if sellers withdraw. I cannot understand why, if a seller withdraws, they do not become liable for the buyer's reasonable expenses.

Althought this too would of course focus the seller's mind before putting their house on the market and, like HIPs, will result in a lot less properties on the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I read somewhere on this forum a couple of weeks ago that when they did a trial of HIPS the number of failed chains fell from 25% to 5%: there may be fewer chains in the first place, but maybe the number of actual sales won't change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I read somewhere on this forum a couple of weeks ago that when they did a trial of HIPS the number of failed chains fell from 25% to 5%: there may be fewer chains in the first place, but maybe the number of actual sales won't change?

A trial run was done in Bristol in the 90’s. It did speed up the process of selling and buying

and was deemed a success. but the test was only on 60 properties?

This year will be the real test bed. Hips may evolve and change into something different.

It may even be delayed which is likely.

Good luck, if any of you think you can sue surveyors!

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.

  • 302 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.