Jump to content

Did Foxtons choose a bad time to open? House prices (Lounged)


Recommended Posts

of all the quotes on here it's this one that sticks the most




on so many levels this annoys me - sorry Jeremy.


Firstly the assumption that housing SHOULD be a commodity just like anything else rather than one of life's essentials (doesn't have to be owned - higher house prices mean higer rental - as a rule).


Secondly - just because house prices are high it doesn't mean THE people (not SOME people) are prepared, or able to pay the price. So many people own more than one home when others own none, (ie people with a surfeit of money) pushing prices up further suggests something is wrong. And there is no point telling nurses, teachers and whoever to get a better-paid job now is there?

snorky in answer to your earlier Q about whether the lovelies at foxtons read this board - the answer is an emphatic yes, and then they sit around and laff and laff and laff. i know one of their PR bods so...i know.

Housing will always be subject to the cyclical boom and bust, due to the social fabric of Britain & the encomony behind it - I cant be arsed to go into "why", but its not too difficult


Until there is a decent , regulated and fair system of rented accomodation as an alternative to ownership, then expect this cycle to continue, grabbing headlines in the Daily mail on an almost daily basis.


The oft quoted example of Germany ith its fair transparent pricing & protection for long standibng tenants means that for many, the oowner4ship of a house if a luxury - its not about security.This means that housing isnt such an issue and the ( traditionally careful with money german public) dont fall into the trap of the feeding frenzy and its bulemic aftermath that seems to typify our uhnealthy relationship with our homes.


Imagine the scenatio - no need for 247 estate agents on LL, the end of foxtons parasites hawking their tainted services around the manor, less concerns about house prices.... the benefits of a decent social democratic approach to the staple of secure decent housing would have so many benefits for society as whole.

Yeah MP's article.


Snorky was actually making sense but I?m not particularly interested in sense on this topic as threads about the property market on this forum are as frequent and pointless as E4?s continuous re-runs of Friends.


I am eternally grateful to Mockney?s article for introducing me to the term ?pin-striped tit-cockers?. I think I have a new favorite term. I?m going to venture forth into the office and try it out.


*Looks down at the suit he is wearing*

Oh dear? :-$

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> on so many levels this annoys me - sorry Jeremy.

>

> Firstly the assumption that housing SHOULD be a

> commodity just like anything else rather than one

> of life's essentials


Don't get me wrong... as I've stated many times, I have no desire to see the price of property rise. Even as a home owner (well sort of), I believe that a "correction" in prices would be beneficial. I agree that housing is a basic need, I've never really viewed it as a financial investment.


> Secondly - just because house prices are high it

> doesn't mean THE people (not SOME people) are

> prepared, or able to pay the price. So many people

> own more than one home when others own none, (ie

> people with a surfeit of money) pushing prices up

> further suggests something is wrong.


My point was - how do you value a property? Certain people say property is over-valued, but what does this mean? How did they calculate what the fair value should be? Currently the value is determined purely by supply and demand in the market. Perhaps the supply/demand balance can be addressed by somehow discouraging property investors, but that's really a separate conversation. Anyway, I think you've misinterpreted my post, Mr MacGabhann! I'm not some sort of money-grabbing property investor wannabe, far from it.

If you are interested in how prices are falling in East Dulwich just check out propertysnake and put in SE22


... I love looking at the overpriced housing in our area plummeting as the property stays on books for over 128 days

I think that Foxtons chose a good time to open, the planning commitee were tired as they had attended six planning meetings in the year and allowed them to open a office that uses to much light, has big chillers for cold drinks, and has five big screen tv's that distract motorists. Its also a pity that Southwark council do not issue penalty tickets for badly designed logo's on cars. I think that the beggars on Lordship Lane should place themselves outside the office, as they will keep warm from the lighting and will be seen by all!.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
    • Hey, I am on the first floor and I am directly impacted if roof leaks. We got a roofing company to do repair work which was supposed to be guaranteed. However, when it started leaking again, we were informed that the guarantee is just for a new roof and not repair work. Each time the company that did the repair work came out again over the next few years, we had to pay additional amounts. The roof continues to leak, so I have just organised another company to fix the roof instead, as the guarantee doesn't mean anything. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...