LondonMix

You're kidding right Mr. Ben. In 2009 -- I wouldn't count any time after that as relevant as the market in London was already recovering-- a 2 bed flat in ED had falled to less than 300k. 250k was pretty typical if you look at sold prices on Rightmove. http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detail.html?country=england&locationIdentifier=OUTCODE%5E2323&searchLocation=SE22&propertyType=2&year=5&referrer=listChangeCriteria&index=975 What flat owner in ED do you think had 100k of equity to put down on a 3 bed house in that situation? There were a few who perhaps had owned their flats for a very long time, but it certainly wouldn't have been typical or common place. Most people would have loved to trade up but it wasn't as simple as finding the will. You should also rememeber that for years most first time buyers we acquiring their properties with 10% and 5% mortgages so the didn't have a lot of equity to start with....

I don't really agree with Mr B. People in flats when prices dipped in London had the equity they built up in there homes erode. Simultaneously, the minimum deposit for any mortgage was 20%. I think people didn't buy in 2008 / 2009 because they couldn't afford to. If you were already on the property ladder, trading up when prices dip is everyone's dream but its rarely feasible.

Agree with DaveR. Its a shame when a tenant is forced to leave but its always a risk when as a business you rent rather than own your premises. Pretty's should have renewed there lease prior to the sale as even with the redevelopment plans, as Honeyb says, the lease couldn't be terminated.

Sorry, comment was more directed toward BigED. However, I am not even against IHT per se

You need a larger young working population to support a growing elderly non-working population. Also, LadyNorwood is right. KalamityKel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > david_carnell Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > Incentives for increasing the birth rate > > possibly. > > > > I'm not quite sure I understand where this relates > to supporting your ideas DC. How does this help > anything? > > If you think it would obviously help - is there > such an incentive, for whatever reason, that > wouldn't result in costing more money that > probably wouldn't be recooped or if it did in any > beneficial way?

That's silly. Most of the people who get hit IHT are paying because they are inheriting a house. Exactly how should people spend or give away the equity held in their house easily before they die. Of course there are ways but it isn't legitimate to be critical of people that don't employ them.

The Met has sold the station very recently so that it can be brough back into use. More likely than not a developer would plan to turn it into housing so I'm not sure I follow someo of the arguments on here.

I find it puts things in perspective as well. London is certainly a city where you make a sacrifice to live no matter how much money you make. However, a recent visit to a suburb in the US very clearly reminded me why I choose to live in a small house in ED rather than cash in my wealth and move elsewhere for a cheaper lifestyle. In London, your wealth is the very ability to live in a dynamic world-class city. It's easy to take London for granted but it truly is one of the greatest cities on the globe.

That's all correct. He can ask for a change in tax code to reflect he will be below the threshold. However, if he should be paying nothing, that will only reduce the size of the refund rather than eliminating a need to file. Filing for a refund isn't too hard and truthfully the sprogg might appreciate the forced savings when he gets the check at the end.

This is really helpful! I have the same dilemma and was leaning towards a kitchen-family room but wasn't sure if I'd regret it as it seems everyone has a kitchen diner these days. Keeping furniture flexible so I can swap things around as needs / seasons change seems to be the best way.

In Scotland the seller has a survey done that is provided to the buyer before they can market the property as well as an independent valuation. Therefore, the buyer has no risk on that side and makes an offer in full knowledge of the state of the property and the valuation it will have that a bank can rely on. In my opinion that is how it should be. Its much more stressful to make an offer as a buyer, and then only find out after you've paid for a survey that the property has subsidence or serious damp and that the morgage company values it below what the seller was asking. Having the seller be responsible for the survey and valuation is why in Scotland you can go fully binding at the offer stage on both sides-- gazumping is illegal.

How's the flat search going Otta?

Haha SJ! Just keepin' it real

There are only just over 400,000 people in the entire country who make more than 100k per annum. The idea that most people in London make a killing in the city is ludicrous. London alone has 7m people and the median salary in London is only 30k (which is a better measure of typical salary). The vast majority of people, even in London, earn no where no these incomes. A six-figure income makes you much better off than the vast majority, even in London. Do a right move search of London for 3 bed terraces and of the 1,200 or so on the market, only 285 cost 800k or more (current asking for a large decent 3 bed in ED). The house prices here are much higher than the great majority of the capital. Just sayin...

At which point you have to ask what on earth you are gaining. I mean how many buyers after going throught he survey and negotiating any of the points that come up then pull out of the transaction. Once you have spent that much time and money you have already demonstrated you are serious. By that point you have spent a lot of money on legal fees, searches, survey fees and non-refundable mortgage application fees. Also, the median income in London is 30k (the average is very distorted by the very few who earn a lot at the top).

Agree-- to most people someone who earns six figures is rich (and its true).

Stamp duty doesn't cause price inflation. Each person has a max that they can afford to pay for a property including taxes and fees. In a competitive market, everyone is already paying the max they are willing too including stamp duty. If stamp duty were lowered, it would actually increase prices as more of every buyer's total budget would go toward the actual price of the house. No one should ever pay a seller a deposit. Some seller's won't take a property off the market until the survey has been booked (at which point they know the seller not only has a mortgage but is incurring significant costs) but actually giving the seller money is madness.

Is there anywhere you would like to live where you could realistically move into a house using the extra 40k an the gain you've made on your flat? If that really is your biggest financial concern for the future, then you should move. If you can't move and you want to figure out how best to invest the 40k that entirely depends on your risk appetite. Paying down your mortgage being the safest option and investing in stocks (or buying a small buy-to-let property) being on the riskier end of the spectrum. What you choose is too personal for anyone to give you advice as it depends on how risk averse you are and how quickly you need the money-- equities can be a good long term investment but the potential volatility in the stock market means that you should be prepared to ride out a storm.

It's typically the DofE (i.e. central government who own the land and buildings).

Also, Otta, being proud of others is synonymous (according to merriam webster) with: causing someone to feel very happy and pleased. When I think of the term "proud grandparents" etc, that's what its always meant to me. Just another way to say very happy.

I've heard repeatedly that boys are lazy from family members and that boys are are slower to reach milestones! This was mostly from family to be fair. The OP's post didn't surprise me at all. Also, I agree its natural to be proud of each milestone. While most kids fortunately do eventually get there, for each child its a journey involving hard work and effort and seeing them accomplish these initial life steps seems miraculous rather than mundane (whenever it happens). It's really no different to proud parents at a wedding. It never really stops...

The point is that the owner is not applying for a change of use at all. This discussion is entirely missing the point. Nothing about the planning application is changing the nature of the retail provision on the street. What some appear to be asking for is that Pretty's get some permanent right to occupy the space regardless of what the terms of their lease say. Why that should be the case isn't clear to me. It?s even more peculiar to suggest that new government regulation is needed to accomplish this.

They aren't changing the class of shop that can occupy the space. What you are asking for are new rules (which would have nothing to do with planning) that prevented a landlord from leasing his or her space to a new tenant under any circumstances. I can't see how that could be good for anyone.

Penguin is right. The only thing the information I shared means is that the current plans don't allow for an estate agent as a future tenant. Whether Pretty goes or stays will be entirely dictated by their lease and the commercial negotiations they enter into with the owner. You can only remove a sitting tenant if the lease allows for it. That you may or may not want to extend the property is not really a factor.

That's probably why whoever started the rumour said that. It's not true though if that calms you down! The current shop is A-1 use under planning law. An estate agent would be A-2 and if it was the owner's intention to lease to an estate agent they would need to apply for a change of use as part of the planning application, and they haven't. See use classes below: http://p4l.co.uk/guidtocomuse.html