Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Land Registry Admits Fiddling Figures


Recommended Posts

Guest sillybear2
If smaller lenders and surveyors are using land registry data for valuations then the loans they are making are riskier, potentially already underwater before (even with lumpier deposits) the ink is dried on the mortgage application and advance.

Hell an high water are being moved to get the lenders to carry on over lending and buyers over bidding in this market, at whatever cost.

Puts the new batch of 60% LTV loans into context doesn't it? This is the only way they can price in risk now the figures cannot be trusted.

The LR cannot fight the market, or perpetuate fraud by the use of spin becuase the unintended consequences are myriad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 224
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

To repeat what I said on the other thread on this subject - I don't think this is right as the LR have no way of knowing which properties are auction sales, which auctioned properties are repos or, indeed, which properties are repo's full stop.

As far as I'm aware al price data comes from the TR1 form which is used to effect the actual legal transfer of the property and this form does not contain any info as to whether it was a repo or was sold at auction.

Interesting. So why would the Guardian:

1 ) make this up?

2 ) make an entire article of it?

As for being unable to identify repo sales, I think you need to follow a tommyboy auction thread. tommyboy looks at the auction catalogue, queries NetHousePrices for matching addresses and , on matching stores this price for comparisson with he auction results. That's how he is able to instantly report falls of 40% etc on previous sales. Clearly, these deep discounts are repos. If tommyboy can do this through nethouseprices and webqueries, are you honestly telling us the land reg can't do the same with its own database? Quite simply they may decide that discounts above a certain value are to be considered "repo" and thus excluded as "commerical" noise.

Edited by Sledgehead
Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't be surprised if this was retracted. I think someone at the Guardian may have misunderstood something that has been said.

EDIT: Certainly they would not regard an auction sale as commerical.

Maybe they're saying if it's a business buying it then it is. So BTL excluded.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If the sentiment on this site as to your "real" identity is anywhere near accurate...

It couldn't be less accurate.

Some cretins on here with miniscule amount of power which they would probably never achieve in the real world, think that anyone who does not keep on bleating phrases like "Zanu Liebor" "Herr Broon" etc. etc must me a Political Troll. If they want to carry on suggesting that a Cabinet Minister - A CABINET MINISTER !!! ffs - would be spending his time writing on this obscure forum, then let them. I must admit, though, that they have achieved what they set out to do which was to turn this forum into a branch office of Tory Central Office - or the Daily Fascist - which means the same thing really. If you can't gain power in Westminster, make the most of every opportunity you get, even if it means running HPC.co.uk !

p

Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting. So why would the Guardian:

1 ) make this up?

2 ) make an entire article of it?

They are a newspaper, what do you expect?

No one is actually saying that they made it up, they may simply have got things **** about face and misunderstood what someone was saying. For instance, they may have become confused between a commercial sale and a sale of commercial property. I mean, were were discussing a pretty significant mistake made by an FT journalist the other day relating to a court report and you would expect those guys to be amongst the most switched on journo's in the land.

However, I think there's a pretty good chance that it is made up, or at least heavily "sexed-up". Why for instance, would you refer to this person from the LR as just an anonymouse source when what they are saying is hardly classifed into?

I think there's a good chance that the hack just read a few post headings on here and concocted a story from it.

There's a book out at present, which my other half has, which goes into great deapth as to how, and why, news reporting has gone all to sh1t of late. Forget the name though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe they're saying if it's a business buying it then it is. So BTL excluded.

That's comkpletely wrong. I've both bought and sold BTL property and those sales show up on all the house price sites. Besides, how would the LR know - I didn't tell them and they don't even ask the question to begin with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's comkpletely wrong. I've both bought and sold BTL property and those sales show up on all the house price sites. Besides, how would the LR know - I didn't tell them and they don't even ask the question to begin with.

Yes it would be wrong to hide residential property sales.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Besides, how would the LR know - I didn't tell them and they don't even ask the question to begin with.

As for being unable to identify repo sales, I think you need to follow a tommyboy auction thread. tommyboy looks at the auction catalogue, queries NetHousePrices for matching addresses and , on matching stores this price for comparisson with he auction results. That's how he is able to instantly report falls of 40% etc on previous sales. One could make an "educated guess" that these deep discounts are repos. If tommyboy can do this through nethouseprices and webqueries, are you honestly telling us the land reg can't do the same with its own database? Quite simply they may decide that discounts above a certain value are to be considered "repo" and thus excluded as "commerical" noise. Can you hand-on-heart exclude this as a possibility?

Edited by Sledgehead
Link to post
Share on other sites
As for being unable to identify repo sales, I think you need to follow a tommyboy auction thread. tommyboy looks at the auction catalogue, queries NetHousePrices for matching addresses and , on matching stores this price for comparisson with he auction results. That's how he is able to instantly report falls of 40% etc on previous sales. One could make an "educated guess" that these deep discounts are repos. If tommyboy can do this through nethouseprices and webqueries, are you honestly telling us the land reg can't do the same with its own database? Quite simply they may decide that discounts above a certain value are to be considered "repo" and thus excluded as "commerical" noise.

This is just a load of speculation. Do you really think it likely that the LR has the manpower to manually assess every purchase with a view to finding out whether it's a BTL, repo? There are loads of reasons why properties may appear cheap. In a divorce a property will often be sold on the cheap to one partner, the property may be in a state of disrepair or unmodernised, it may have been damaged by fire or flood or land-slip. All of these will result in an apparently under value sale but all but the first will actually represent a sale at the full market price.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is just a load of speculation. Do you really think it likely that the LR has the manpower to manually assess every purchase with a view to finding out whether it's a BTL, repo?

What? Tommyboy does this on his own. Read my post FFS.

There are loads of reasons why properties may appear cheap. In a divorce a property will often be sold on the cheap to one partner, the property may be in a state of disrepair or unmodernised, it may have been damaged by fire or flood or land-slip. All of these will result in an apparently under value sale but all but the first will actually represent a sale at the full market price.

I offered you a way of spotting deep discounts. I said that this could be a route by which the Land Reg identifies those sales to be excluded. Yes, it may be pure speculation, but do you honestly believe that after manipulation of:

1 ) hospital waiting times;

2 ) inflation figures;

3 ) jobless figures;

4 ) exam results;

5 ) gov current account figs;

6 ) immigration figures;

7 ) crime statistics;

8 ) etc etc,

you have any good reason to believe the Land Reg figures are the ONLY gov figures that represent the truth? If you are that gullible, you'd best be tootling back to singing pig.

Edited by Sledgehead
Link to post
Share on other sites
What? Tommyboy does this on his own. Read my post FFS.

I offered you a way of spotting deep discounts. I said that this could be a route by which the Land Reg identifies those sales to be excluded. Yes, it may be pure speculation, but do you honestly believe that after manipulation of:

1 ) hospital waiting list times;

2 ) inflation figures;

3 ) jobless figures;

4 ) exam results;

5 ) gov current account figs;

6 ) immigration figures;

7 ) etce etc,

you have any good reason to believe the Land Reg figures are the ONLY figures that represent the truth? If you are that gullible, you'd best be tootling back to singing pig.

I didn't say they represented anything of the sort. They are certainly not particularly accurate as they are months out of date.

What I'm trying to get accross is the fact that yet again most people on here, people who are clearly pretty bright and financially astute (not to mention pretty cynical of most things in print) most of the time, are simply accepting an unreferenced newspaper report without any critical analysis as to whether it's actually likely to be true or not.

To reiterate. The only source of price information the LR uses is the "Price Stated" box on their own TR1 form. A form which does not ask for any information regarding how a property was sold or whether it was a repo or not. Given that, is it likely that they are just making arbitrary decisions as to the nature of a particular sale when it would be just as easy to ask the question on the form in the first place?

Why do people find it so hard to question what they are reading before they launch into some anti-government, New World Order, Tin-foil hatter type rant?

Link to post
Share on other sites
As for being unable to identify repo sales, I think you need to follow a tommyboy auction thread. tommyboy looks at the auction catalogue, queries NetHousePrices for matching addresses and , on matching stores this price for comparisson with he auction results. That's how he is able to instantly report falls of 40% etc on previous sales. One could make an "educated guess" that these deep discounts are repos. If tommyboy can do this through nethouseprices and webqueries, are you honestly telling us the land reg can't do the same with its own database? Quite simply they may decide that discounts above a certain value are to be considered "repo" and thus excluded as "commerical" noise. Can you hand-on-heart exclude this as a possibility?

No way. More likely to have teams of a dozen attend every auction. Employment stats are important to the government as well!

p-o-p

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do people find it so hard to question what they are reading before they launch into some anti-government, New World Order, Tin-foil hatter type rant?

Agreed. Lots of people looking silly again.

The article claims auctions are excluded. You can prove to yourself that this is wrong very quickly. Go to your favourite auction site, pull up the list of results, find one of the properties on your chosen house price site.

I have, auction prices are quite clearly in there. I'm pretty sure that both of the ones I checked were repos, but do your own research to check this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do people find it so hard to question what they are reading before they launch into some anti-government, New World Order, Tin-foil hatter type rant?

Bitter experience? :lol:

I take your point. Nevertheless, when it comes to misreporting the facts, percentagewise, the government probebly has a much longer rap-sheet than the Guardian, and, crucially a motive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed. Lots of people looking silly again.

The article claims auctions are excluded. You can prove to yourself that this is wrong very quickly. Go to your favourite auction site, pull up the list of results, find one of the properties on your chosen house price site.

I have, auction prices are quite clearly in there. I'm pretty sure that both of the ones I checked were repos, but do your own research to check this.

:lol:

Oh dear, dear. That's like saying you know that the fall of ipod prices is in the infaltion statistics because you saw a Curry's window sign saying "20% off ipod nanos!".

Face it, you have a list of data, but what you don't have is any idea how they are treated and whether they are included in the stats at all.

And see how easliy you allowed yourself to be persuaded that the deeply discounted ones were repos:

"I'm pretty sure that both of the ones I checked were repos"

Unthinkable that government would, with vested interests, do the same thing!

Edited by Sledgehead
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AuntJess
"...on the grounds that they do not represent the full market value..." ???????

If this is true, it's an absolute scandal.

What these sales represent is precisely the market value of the properties.

It amounts to deliberate falsification of the figures - no surprise there, then.

Who will have instructed the LR to do this?

No doubt Caroline Flint would deny all knowledge.

Are the LR crazy? <_< They are inferring that houses have an absolute value - for all time.

Good-o, let's gor back to 1995 prices then. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
And see how easliy you allowed yourself to be persuaded that the deeply discounted ones were repos:

"I'm pretty sure that both of the ones I checked were repos"

Unthinkable that government would, with vested interests, do the same thing!

I'm pretty sure, as I looked at both properties at the time and (unless my memory is going) saw them as being sold by the mortgagee.

Face it, you have a list of data, but what you don't have is any idea how they are treated and whether they are included in the stats at all.

As has been said previously, how would the LR know if they were repos? Why would they care?

Link to post
Share on other sites
represent full market value

Are the LR crazy? <_< They are inferring that houses have an absolute value - for all time.

And surely here is the nubb of the issue. The very term "below market value" bandied about exclusively by bulls tells you all you need to know. In their mind a property does not just have an intrinsic value - itself a debateble issue, but a predeterminable market value that exists INSPITE OF THE MARKET. An auction is a market. In fact it is a darn site better market than that which exists when most houses are bought and sold. At auction a group of traders gather. Not just Granny Popplestick, who really has always wanted to live next to a gasometer. Yet, many of the participants, all of which who are property devotees, will refer to buying "below market value", even as the hammer falls - at a superior market!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

This quite clearly shows the intensity of delusion that exists in property circles. Participants are CONVINCED that they know the market better than the market!

It is this kind of delusional thinking that allows some to imagine that the Land Reg could not possibly be involved in mispricing, because they themselves subconsciously do it all the time - and consider it "price discovey" when it is nothing more than osterich behaviour. It is this behaviour that allows me to stray into what some might consider tin-foil hat wearing territory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As has been said previously, how would the LR know

same as tommyboy, then assume that there is such a thing as "below market value" and exlude on the assumption these are repos. All done by IT.

Why would the LR bother? Hmmm. Remind me again why lenders won't lend more than 90%?

Edited by Sledgehead
Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't be surprised if this was retracted. I think someone at the Guardian may have misunderstood something that has been said.

EDIT: Certainly they would not regard an auction sale as commerical.

As with any kind of freedom of information request, if you ask for the raw data they will give you a carefully constructed bundle of lies dressed as 'analysis'. I wouldn't trust them to analyse the outpourings of their bottoms.

EDIT: the other thing that strikes me about this is that if that is what the figures are showing with the biggest fiddle of all time, how much worse (for others, not me) must they be than we are being told

Edited by Elizabeth
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2
It couldn't be less accurate.

Some cretins on here with miniscule amount of power which they would probably never achieve in the real world, think that anyone who does not keep on bleating phrases like "Zanu Liebor" "Herr Broon" etc. etc must me a Political Troll. If they want to carry on suggesting that a Cabinet Minister - A CABINET MINISTER !!! ffs - would be spending his time writing on this obscure forum, then let them. I must admit, though, that they have achieved what they set out to do which was to turn this forum into a branch office of Tory Central Office - or the Daily Fascist - which means the same thing really. If you can't gain power in Westminster, make the most of every opportunity you get, even if it means running HPC.co.uk !

People hate NuLabour, it's not some Tory conspiracy, the very fact Tories and the SNP actually manage to win seats just shows you how hated Labour are. Even Brown knows this, that's why he doesn't have the balls to call an election.

Link to post
Share on other sites
same as tommyboy, then assume that there is such a thing as "below market value" and exlude on the assumption these are repos. All done by IT.

Why would the LR bother? Hmmm. Remind me again why lenders won't lend more than 90%?

But, you would never operate such a system because it's an entirely arbitrary one. I've already given several examples of why a property may appear to be below market value but actually would not be. It would be merely guesswork as to which properties to exclude as you could never be sure you are excluding the correct ones. In a market like we have at the moment the LR would have to exclude probably more than 50% of sales. Has anyone thought to research the actual number of sales that the latest LR figures are based on and compared that with actual completions?

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • 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.