Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 1 year later...

We traded up and completely fluked the timing of it (feb last year)

i had a flat and my partner didn't own a property

we used the equity in my flat to buy a 3 bed and effectively 'geared up' (sorry) using the second mortgage belonging to my partner

so in the resulting rise we should have benefitted more than if we had stayed put


i'm firmly in the 'double-dip camp' though but we chose to gear up for baby reasons


death,dole,divorce


edit to say - is it me or does that cat look very alive? ;)

I'm mystified. I bought my flat in East D 4 years ago and have just had it valued by 3 different estate agents, all of whom valued it above what I bought it for, which surprised me as I assumed it would have gone down or at the very best retained the value I paid. The highest valuation was 90 grand above what I paid 4 years ago - are they simply making it up to encourage me to put it on the market?
  • 1 year later...

???? Wrote:

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

> or, to put it simply, Buy to let is @#$%&, as is

> "this is my pension" (aimed at your house). Marky

> I reckon your right a 50%ish fall and a long slow

> recovery


50% you say. It looks to me like ED property is currently trading around 2007 levels. Dulwich Village is ahead of 2007 levels it seems.


Buy to Let is back in fashion.


Discuss.....


(Love this thread, had to bring it back)

Yes the top of the market has rebounded strongly - much more so in central London, where prices are more than 10% over 2007's peak (provided you ignore the fall in sterling).


I think it's all propped up by the record low bank rate. This supports house prices in various ways:

* holds back tide of repossessions

* improves affordability for buyers (particularly the equity rich, i.e. wealthy buyers at top of market)

* makes savings accounts useless & drives yield-hungry investors elsewhere

* makes inflation more likely and increases demand for assets like property & commodities (QE also had this effect)



All this could go into reverse if rates start to rise, but I think the BoE will hold them low for years as it's now targetting house prices in order to prop up our quango-banks, which would implode if house prices crashed again. It certainly isn't a free market.


Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> 50% you say. It looks to me like ED property is

> currently trading around 2007 levels. Dulwich

> Village is ahead of 2007 levels it seems.

>

> Buy to Let is back in fashion.

>

> Discuss.....

>

> (Love this thread, had to bring it back)

Another factor might be the wealthy Chinese buyers flooding into central London and buying almost everything in sight. Chinese investors made stacks in Beijing during the last Olympics and may be hoping for another Olympic bubble in London. That would obviously be a temporary boost for prices..



Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> 50% you say. It looks to me like ED property is

> currently trading around 2007 levels. Dulwich

> Village is ahead of 2007 levels it seems.

>

> Buy to Let is back in fashion.

>

> Discuss.....

  • 2 weeks later...

Agreed that BoE is targetting house prices or, more accurately, the continued (?) solvency of UK banks/PLc.

It certainly isn't bothered about inflation and probably prefers quite a high rate to erode Govt debt.

Borrow borrow borrow if you can...

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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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