London SE1 community website

House prices continue to rise

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 Next
Current: 3 of 5
Friday 14 November 2008 3.56pm
Anyone see the prog on BBC2 last night, comparing long term returns on rent v buy (i.e. assuming you could put aside a sum of cash equal to the fixed costs of buying - duty, agent & legal fees, etc - and invest it in the stock exchange, and comparing that to return on property)?

Even a housebuying sceptic like me was amazed that it was fairly neutral between the two.

(Caveat that I haven't looked deeper into how they did their calcs, and I was half watching the programme and half doing other things).

...if you press it, they will come.
Friday 14 November 2008 8.56pm
BBC confirms here that Land Registry HPI does not include Repos. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3132863.stm

Ivanhoe - the long term comparison between buying and renting is fun to do, but in the long run it really depends more on general inflation (assuming you're buying on a mortgage) than it does on anything else.
Thursday 20 November 2008 10.21am
So that is the same BBC as this one?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7011715.stm

You may care to refer to a case that was in court only last month, which appears to reaffirm a lender's rights to sell a property (in accordance with s101 of the Law Of Property Act I quoted earlier) without reference to the courts.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2008/2327.html

Read paragraph 7
Quote:
7. There is no relevant dispute of fact. In particular, Miss Beech accepts that she and Mr Clark [the property owners] were in arrears with their mortgage payments, that the mortgage money had become due within the meaning of section 101(1)(iii) of the LPA, that the Mortgage contained the requisite power, in addition to section 101, for GMAC to appoint receivers and that the Mortgage contained the requisite power enabling the receivers to sell the Property free from the rights of the defendants as mortgagors.

A lender goes to court to seek possession of a property, in order that when he exercises his right to sell the property he can do so with vacant possession.
Friday 21 November 2008 5.21pm
Right. Not only have I got fed up of arguing about this, but the question has become tangentially relevant for my job (regarding whether I can make sensible use of some economic projections another department are compiling or not). So on that basis I have phoned the statistical agency who put together the HPI survey for them, and asked the question directly.

The answer is that they do not include sales which are considered to be 'distressed' or 'not on the open market'. This would, they say, be likely to cause the exclusion from the repeat sales regression index the vast majority of auctioned repos, etc. They are checking the exact definitions used to work it out, and are going to email it to me next week.
Tuesday 25 November 2008 11.05am
Excellent. We shall be able to see whether the Land Registry's website means what it says! What you have been told does not appear to be what the website tells us.

The thing is... there is no way that the LR knows (for certain) if a sale is distressed or not. From what you've been told, executors' sales should be excluded. As should a sale by the individual when he knows his bank is going to kick him out, but he manages to sell it off quickly enough before they do so.
Thursday 27 November 2008 9.30pm
They haven't come back to me yet, but anecdotally a 1-bed flat down the road from me which sold for 170k in 2006 has just come on the market for 127.5k.
Friday 28 November 2008 1.43pm
Oh man, that's GOTTA hurt... sounds like a repossession, no?
Friday 28 November 2008 4.07pm
Yes, though apparently it's in good condition but needs a new kitchen. Actually what happened, having checked, is that it sold new-build for 170k to a flipper in 2005, who somehow managed to get 210k for it last year, I imagine from a buy-to-let numpty.

Clearly that was nuts and unaffordable, so it was (I assume) repossessed. It went to auction with a reserve of 140k two months ago, but the highest bid was 130k. Having failed to dispose post the auction, they put it back on last month with a reserve of 130k after all, but this time the highest bid was 113k. Now with an estate agent.

Almost tempted to offer 115k. It's probably worth about that - that's what middling 1-bed ex-council places round here went for in 2003.
Friday 28 November 2008 5.33pm
What were middling 2 bed ex council flats going for in 2003?
Friday 28 November 2008 7.17pm
Gordon OKR wrote:
What were middling 2 bed ex council flats going for in 2003?

145-150k, thereabouts? But bear in mind I'm (just) in SE16, so I imagine more in Borough, though possibly less in Elephant.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 Next
Current: 3 of 5

To post a message, please log in or register..
We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions