Which of these properties should I go for?

[dave0010]

So recently I have changed the area I have been looking for my first place.

My budget has always been a maximum of £100,000 And I now have these 3 properties at the top of my list.

Property number one

http://www.primelocation.com/uk-property-for-sale/...

This would be the furthest commute to work and offers the most for my money but is possible not in the best of locations.

Number 2

http://www.primelocation.com/uk-property-for-sale/...

Something a bit different but also a fully detached cottage full of character.

Number 3

http://www.primelocation.com/uk-property-for-sale/...

Shared ownership but this is probably my favourite due to its location and I love the garden.

So what do you guys think? constructive opinion's are what im after

[goldblum]

None of them.Keep looking.

[dave0010]

goldblum said:

None of them.Keep looking.

but i want them all

[lewis s]

With the shared ownership can you afford the mortgage and the rent? I thought that they were only really beneficial if you could'nt get a large enough deposit?

Have you been to see them yet?

[m3jappa]

On the face of it probably number 2.

Theres lots to think about though, more than can be relayed over the net imo.

[jessica]

m3jappa said:

On the face of it probably number 2.

Theres lots to think about though, more than can be relayed over the net imo.

NO 2 just need to ditch the brown paint... could be stunning.............

[MikeyT]

You any good at DIY?

If so then 1 and maybe 2 if you're really good.

If you don't know a bandsaw from a hammer then 3

[flyingjase]

Unless you have webbed feet and a pointy head, option 2 is out

Personally I don't see the point in shared ownership if you can afford to 100% of a house, therefore for me it would be option 1. May not be the best looking house and also terrace, but it'll be yours.

[Zippee]

I don't know the areas at all so can only comment on the adverts alone. Personally though I like no2 the best (though would keep looking as none really do it for me) as it has the potential to be made into something quite nice, though on the flipside also has the potential to be a money pit. No3 - I don't like, nor really see the point in shared ownership so that would be a no for me.

[bigandclever]

Property 1 - having your only bog downstairs get tedious very quickly

[Jonathan27]

Less than 100k for a house! I didn’t think these things existed anymore.

[danyeates]

Jonathan27 said:

Less than 100k for a house! I didn’t think these things existed anymore.

I was just thinking the same thing!!

[jdw1234]

Definately not number 3!!!

Also, what does this mean in number 2?


AGENTS NOTE - The Property will be subject to a £50% residential development uplift clause for a term of 25 years from date of sale.

[K50 DEL]

No question, it has to be number 2.... number 1 is mid-terrace with (i assume) on street parking and number 3 is a soul less modern box which will have tiny rooms and be built of cardboard.

As far as the uplift statement goes, it just means that if the site was redeveloped / planning permission for redevelopment obtained then 50% of the increase in value must be returned to the current vendor.... of little consequence if you're planning to buy it to live in.

[Jobbo]

jdw1234 said:

Also, what does this mean in number 2?


AGENTS NOTE - The Property will be subject to a £50% residential development uplift clause for a term of 25 years from date of sale.

This is an overage clause - usually found where there's a possibility of development (particularly if it's a small house on a big plot). Basically the seller wants some share of the uplift in value if the buyer (or any future buyers in the next 25 years) develops the plot.

They are usually riddled with problems and virtually impossible to agree; whatever you do agree now, the buyer then try to find a way around when they decide to develop. Usually best just to pay slightly more and buy the property unencumbered, IMO.

Still #2 looks good to me, subject to the terms of the overage clause. It may kick in even if you simply extend the property or obtain planning permission but don't implement it, so watch out.

[louiebaby]

K50 DEL said:

No question, it has to be number 2.... number 1 is mid-terrace with (i assume) on street parking and number 3 is a soul less modern box which will have tiny rooms and be built of cardboard.

As far as the uplift statement goes, it just means that if the site was redeveloped / planning permission for redevelopment obtained then 50% of the increase in value must be returned to the current vendor.... of little consequence if you're planning to buy it to live in.

If I liked the place, and it had been on the market for a bit, I'd offer him full asking with the clause removed. I hate stuff like this.

[K50 DEL]

louiebaby said:

K50 DEL said:

No question, it has to be number 2.... number 1 is mid-terrace with (i assume) on street parking and number 3 is a soul less modern box which will have tiny rooms and be built of cardboard.

As far as the uplift statement goes, it just means that if the site was redeveloped / planning permission for redevelopment obtained then 50% of the increase in value must be returned to the current vendor.... of little consequence if you're planning to buy it to live in.

If I liked the place, and it had been on the market for a bit, I'd offer him full asking with the clause removed. I hate stuff like this.

Yep... though if I was the seller and someone did that I'd immediately think they planned to re-develop and either stick to my guns or jack the price a little to remove the clause.

Uplift clauses are a pain, but for the ultimate in hassle try a flying freehold!

[louiebaby]

K50 DEL said:

Yep... though if I was the seller and someone did that I'd immediately think they planned to re-develop and either stick to my guns or jack the price a little to remove the clause.

Uplift clauses are a pain, but for the ultimate in hassle try a flying freehold!

I had to look that up. You're right, that sounds worse.

[okgo]

bigandclever said:

Property 1 - having your only bog downstairs get tedious very quickly

Not to mention bumping into films crews and Jack Duckworth every ten minutes!

[jdw1234]

Jobbo said:

jdw1234 said:

Also, what does this mean in number 2?


AGENTS NOTE - The Property will be subject to a £50% residential development uplift clause for a term of 25 years from date of sale.

This is an overage clause - usually found where there's a possibility of development (particularly if it's a small house on a big plot). Basically the seller wants some share of the uplift in value if the buyer (or any future buyers in the next 25 years) develops the plot.

They are usually riddled with problems and virtually impossible to agree; whatever you do agree now, the buyer then try to find a way around when they decide to develop. Usually best just to pay slightly more and buy the property unencumbered, IMO.

Still #2 looks good to me, subject to the terms of the overage clause. It may kick in even if you simply extend the property or obtain planning permission but don't implement it, so watch out.

Thanks for the explanation!