How far will house prices fall [volume 4]

[Graemsay]

Another piece on empty properties in Kensington, with the statistic that there are over fifty superprime houses that have been unoccupied for at least eleven years.

https://whoownsengland.org/2017/06/18/where-are-th...

[z4RRSchris]

i know the chap who owns most of Cudug Square on long lease. Middle Eastern - he did rent them out but it became too much of a hassle.

[NomduJour]

Graemsay said:

Another piece on empty properties in Kensington, with the statistic that there are over fifty superprime houses that have been unoccupied for at least eleven years.

https://whoownsengland.org/2017/06/18/where-are-th...

There are lots of Ferraris which don't get used much in London car parks. I'm going to requisition them, it's me ooman rights innit

[NomduJour]

Also seems that the percentage of unoccupied homes in K&C is lower than the national average, and way lower than, say, Paris or New York.

Politics-of-envy non-story whipped up by a despicable rabble-rouser masquerading as a politician.

[iphonedyou]

Graemsay said:

Another piece on empty properties in Kensington, with the statistic that there are over fifty superprime houses that have been unoccupied for at least eleven years.

https://whoownsengland.org/2017/06/18/where-are-th...

I just can't see an issue with this. If they're owned, it's the owners' prerogative to do what they like with the properties. They can't be compelled to live in any particular building, and can't be compelled to allow others to live in their asset - and nor should they be.

[TheLordJohn]

iphonedyou said:

I just can't see an issue with this. If they're owned, it's the owners' prerogative to do what they like with the properties. They can't be compelled to live in any particular building, and can't be compelled to allow others to live in their asset - and nor should they be.

Rich vs 'Poor', fuelled by buffoons such as Owen Jones and CorbynLaden.

[Sheepshanks]

iphonedyou said:

I just can't see an issue with this. If they're owned, it's the owners' prerogative to do what they like with the properties. They can't be compelled to live in any particular building, and can't be compelled to allow others to live in their asset - and nor should they be.

I'm in two minds about this. I don't like the State interfering but it instinctively doesn’t feel right to have property sitting empty. It surely must cause all kind of distortions. It forces prices up – OK, at the “superprime” level that doesn’t matter much, but presumably it happens at all levels.

Also, while the borough gets a bit of council tax with effectively no cost attached, the people that ought to be occupying those properties aren’t putting anything into the local economy.

[okgo]

Sheepshanks said:

I'm in two minds about this. I don't like the State interfering but it instinctively doesn’t feel right to have property sitting empty. It surely must cause all kind of distortions. It forces prices up – OK, at the “superprime” level that doesn’t matter much, but presumably it happens at all levels.

Also, while the borough gets a bit of council tax with effectively no cost attached, the people that ought to be occupying those properties aren’t putting anything into the local economy.

Do you know that?

How do you know they didn't employ a huge amount of people to refit the place. Or to keep it clean and up to scratch while they are not there? Michael Bloomberg used to spend my salary on flowers each year in his place, despite barely being in it, from a local(ish) florist.

[Sheepshanks]

okgo said:

Do you know that?

How do you know they didn't employ a huge amount of people to refit the place. Or to keep it clean and up to scratch while they are not there? Michael Bloomberg used to spend my salary on flowers each year in his place, despite barely being in it, from a local(ish) florist.

Of course I don't know that, and even without a refit there will be a degree of maintenance and security as places surprisingly quickly fall into disrepair.

It's also possible, especially at the top end, that even people living there wouldn't spend much locally.

However I think it's a reasonable assumption that people who aren't there will spend a lot less than people who are there.

[anonymous-user]

Sheepshanks said:

iphonedyou said:

I just can't see an issue with this. If they're owned, it's the owners' prerogative to do what they like with the properties. They can't be compelled to live in any particular building, and can't be compelled to allow others to live in their asset - and nor should they be.

I'm in two minds about this. I don't like the State interfering but it instinctively doesn’t feel right to have property sitting empty. It surely must cause all kind of distortions. It forces prices up – OK, at the “superprime” level that doesn’t matter much, but presumably it happens at all levels.

Also, while the borough gets a bit of council tax with effectively no cost attached, the people that ought to be occupying those properties aren’t putting anything into the local economy.

It seems from that report that 'There was almost no evidence of ‘buy to leave’– certainly less than 1% of new homes bought by overseas buyers were left entirely empty'. It would seem that those with huge amounts of cash to buy and leave a property, tend to do that with the £5m+ places that are an irrelevance from a overall housing perspective.

However that doesn't suit the narrative for some, so will be an inconvenient fact and ignored

[z4RRSchris]

Sheepshanks said:

However I think it's a reasonable assumption that people who aren't there will spend a lot less than people who are there.

Ish. We have normal chaps in £2m flats who spend a normal amount of cash. We also have arabs and russians who fly in for 4 weeks to the same £2m flats and spend an obscene amount of money in those 4 weeks.

They will book and pay for 2/3 restaurants a night and decide which one, if any, they feel like eating at.
RR Ghost with driver on hire 24/7 for 4 weeks. £2000 pd= £56,000!

[kingston12]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I wonder how much the attitude to offers is changing. Chances are that if someone put a house on at £1.25m a while ago, they'd be hoping for a sealed bid situation and actually get offers higher than that. Now they are down at £1.1m, they are almost definitely going to get offers lower still. Quite a big swing overall.

There is one in my area in a bit of a different price bracket that has been on well over a year now. Started at £775k, reduced in £25k increments to £675k now. The £775k was a bit over the top to start with, they would have got that for the house in very good condition, this is just average. I still think they could have probably got £750k back then, but were probably looking for offers over the original asking price.

I'd be interested to see what they get for it now. If the market doesn't change and they actually want to sell I can see £625k which represents a 17% drop from what I think it would have gone for at the start.

[okgo]

Yet the moron estate agents are still bringing stuff on 20% over realistic selling price knowing full well its going to drop week by week sitting there like an unloved dog out in the rain.

It is so stupid, the longer these places sit there, the longer people wonder wtf is wrong with them, its idiotic.

[sugerbear]

Sheepshanks said:

iphonedyou said:

I just can't see an issue with this. If they're owned, it's the owners' prerogative to do what they like with the properties. They can't be compelled to live in any particular building, and can't be compelled to allow others to live in their asset - and nor should they be.

I'm in two minds about this. I don't like the State interfering....

I agree with you. We shouldn't have the state interfering.. so lets get ride of the planning laws that restricts the supply and allow anyone to build whatever they want anywhere they want. That would see a normalisation of house prices (it would also see foreign investors rushing to flog off whatever they can).

You can't have the state interfering in the supply of available land without doing something to deal with the demand.

[Tuna]

sugerbear said:

I agree with you. We shouldn't have the state interfering.. so lets get ride of the planning laws that restricts the supply and allow anyone to build whatever they want anywhere they want. That would see a normalisation of house prices (it would also see foreign investors rushing to flog off whatever they can).

You can't have the state interfering in the supply of available land without doing something to deal with the demand.

It would be a positive step if they changed the planning laws towards a presumption of a right to build rather than an assumption that we should be 'preserving our green and pleasant land'. I'm not talking about unfettered building, but a general statement that new, good quality building is encouraged in all but exceptional locations - perhaps as a percentage of property or property turnover in an area.

Locally at least the effect of the current barriers is that well considered developments are mired in endless rounds of planning applications, but the box builders with a well trod formula and large legal team squeeze in dead end mini-estates left right and centre. Houses still get built, but as a disorganised trickle rather than a high quality flow.

The current focus on hurdles to jump over ensures that much new housing stock is targeted at *just* clearing those hurdles - and no higher. Moving towards an attitude that 'something will be built, so lets make it good' might encourage more of a beauty contest where developers compete to build better, bring in new technologies and better energy credentials.

[Derek Chevalier]

sugerbear said:

I agree with you. We shouldn't have the state interfering.. so lets get ride of the planning laws that restricts the supply and allow anyone to build whatever they want anywhere they want. That would see a normalisation of house prices (it would also see foreign investors rushing to flog off whatever they can).

What makes you say it would see a normalisation of house prices? Were the planning laws massively restricted circa 2000 when house started rising by 20% a year? If the Government really want unwind the bubble they know exactly what to do.

Edited by Derek Chevalier on Wednesday 21st June 19:45

[hyphen]

Sheepshanks said:

iphonedyou said:

I just can't see an issue with this. If they're owned, it's the owners' prerogative to do what they like with the properties. They can't be compelled to live in any particular building, and can't be compelled to allow others to live in their asset - and nor should they be.

I'm in two minds about this. I don't like the State interfering but it instinctively doesn’t feel right to have property sitting empty. It surely must cause all kind of distortions. It forces prices up – OK, at the “superprime” level that doesn’t matter much, but presumably it happens at all levels.

Also, while the borough gets a bit of council tax with effectively no cost attached, the people that ought to be occupying those properties aren’t putting anything into the local economy.

The UK state interfering in the housing market is pretty much a given, our economy relies so heavily on it. Putting in some sensible rules after a lengthy consultation period would probably be wise.

Kinda ironic that a lot of the foreign buyers in London are from countries where they don't allow foreign buyers to buy property as they don't want to inflate their own prices.

Also many don't seem to pay council tax- there was a story in the news where no one in a Knightsbridge new build had registered for council tax, properties were all in the name of companies in tax havens so no joy there. Council then tried to get details from building management but they refused to give residents details too.

Edited by hyphen on Wednesday 21st June 18:51

[Pork]

okgo said:

Yet the moron estate agents are still bringing stuff on 20% over realistic selling price knowing full well its going to drop week by week sitting there like an unloved dog out in the rain.

It is so stupid, the longer these places sit there, the longer people wonder wtf is wrong with them, its idiotic.

"But volumes are so low, prices are on the up"

EAs afraid of reducing listing prices and won't reduce through fear of contagion. It has potential to deflate as quickly as it inflated, just no one is prepared to say so.

[hyphen]

Pork said:

"But volumes are so low, prices are on the up"

EAs afraid of reducing listing prices and won't reduce through fear of contagion. It has potential to deflate as quickly as it inflated, just no one is prepared to say so.

Do you think so. I would have thought it is more that they don't want the vendor to choose another EA on the basis of a higher valuation.

From an EA's point of view, I would imagine that as they have overheads and salaries to pay, so they would rather close a sale than mess around with quarterly price reductions.

[hyphen]

Going back to London apartments, City Of London Corporation has apparently purchased 68 new builds in Kensington for £10 Million, so average of £147k each which is claimed to be the 'cost price'.

To be used for social housing for the Grenfell ex-residents.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/gr...

Edited by hyphen on Wednesday 21st June 22:36