Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think I posted this to the wrong list before.


Just wondering if anyone knows what's going on with this property: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-51365189.html


From the listings and the photos, it looks derelict, but the postman told me it's been inhabited continuously for years. Obviously I will query this with Foxtons, but thought it might be useful to see if anyone here knows the deal first.


Thanks,


Maris

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/71658-6br-house-on-thorncombe-road/
Share on other sites

Perhaps due to the price?


wellington Wrote:

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

> The postman is correct. I live locally and

> regularly see the owners. I hadn't realised that

> they've moved out until I saw your post. The

> house has been for sale for awhile now with

> various agents.

I don't think they have moved out, from the postman was saying, in that he said last week he was pretty sure people lived there. But Foxtons, which has had that listing for a while, is posting photos of the inside that look like there is really significant water damage and suggest it is scarcely inhabitable. Hard to reconcile, unless the owners are living in extremis.
I'd imagine it has been on the market for a while because it appears to be a damp infested shit tip with hideous carpets. At least two of the "bedrooms" appear to be pokey attic rooms with barely any light. It's also fairly ugly from the outside, the asking price of ?1.2 million is just insane.

When 52 sqm 2BR flats in SE22 are fetching ?400-?450k, it's hard to argue that this is necessarily overpriced. And they've lowered the price twice so presumably are open to offers. I'm just trying to make sure it's not being squatted and also to understand if anyone knows what happened, i.e. flood or something similar.


Thanks,


Maris

Cyclemonkey Wrote:

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

> I'd imagine it has been on the market for a while

> because it appears to be a damp infested shit tip

> with hideous carpets. At least two of the

> "bedrooms" appear to be pokey attic rooms with

> barely any light. It's also fairly ugly from the

> outside, the asking price of ?1.2 million is just

> insane.


So funny, I love this winning description - you should be an estate agent, or maybe you are.

No I'm not an estate agent, just someone who has spent too long being shown places by estate agents whose owners expect can good price but font expect to have to make the place at all presentable.


To be honest if they want to get a million plus for it they do need to clear it out properly and deal with the obvious damp problem as any potential buyer is going to bargain hard on that. Also be wary of what they don't show. Kitchens and bathrooms are always of most interest to buyers as they cost a lot of money to put right. Given the quality of the rooms they have shown I fully expect the kitchen and bathroom to be total disasters.

Its been photographed empty so its unlikely anyone should be living there. There might be squatters though, particularly if its been empty a long time.


There hasn?t been any flooding in ED that would have caused that damage. Whatever the problem is, its related to some system or structural element in the house failing.


This place could easily cost 200k to 350k to do up properly depending on what caused the damage (i.e. what needs to be fixed), if wood rot has set in and done serious damage to the timbers, what state the sash windows are in, how expensive it will be to demolish that garage that awkwardly divides the garden and if you do a ground floor extension. It?s a big house (circa 2,000 sqft excluding the garage and cellar) and assuming the loft has been converted legally and safely, the house could be worth a lot once finished.


However, I would definitely not be paying more than 800k-900k in light of what can be seen in the photos. Larger homes sell for a lower price psft so I?d be shocked if the house was able to actually sell for more than 1.3-1.4m once finished.


I?ve done up two homes, one of which was a totally uninhabitable wreck when we bought it. It allowed us to end up with a place that was worth a lot more than we spent on it, so all the work was worth it as we have a much lower mortgage as a result. I wouldn?t do it otherwise?its much easier to buy a finished house or a place that just needs cosmetic updating. Don?t underestimate how time consuming and stressful doing up a house in that kind of state will be. It?s a second full time job on top of your day job.

The 'garden' (interesting there are no pictures of that) has a garage plonked into the middle of it - side access is clearly a good thing, but that layout looks awkward.


It is clearly a fixer-upper - but it seems priced as a 'fixed-up' entity. With the loft already converted the potential is all in it being made rather more than just habitable.


There does seem to be damp - this may just reflect something easily fixed (gutters or flashing) but may be something more worrying. If there has been a significant flood (perhaps through the roof or issues with internal pipes), what is the wiring now like?


Stripping out the awful carpets back to bare board would be something - but are the carpets perhaps hiding problems?


The decor suggests that nothing has been done to the house since the sixties (at least). I suspect that may also be true of wiring etc.


There could easily be ?100k of work necessary, if not more (that's assuming there aren't structural horrors lurking). Would the house then (done-up) be worth ?1.3m? Sales around it (as in the e-flyer) don't really seem to support that.

You?d have to take for granted the entire house needs to be replumbed and rewired and then replastered and redecorated as a minimum.

The real risks in how much it will costs are:

1. What caused the water damage?failing pointing due to subsidence? Failing roof? Failing flashing, burst water heater etc. It could be simple or expensive to out right.

2. What damage has the water done?do you have severe wood rot that has undermined the timbers / integrity of the house etc?

I tend to agree that to budget for your higher estimates - up to ?350k - would be sensible until the full picture can be made clear. On the view that, even if fully done-up to a high standard, the likely best price in the current market for that layout and location will be around the ?1m mark - then paying much over ?650k in current condition (unless there's a really compelling surveyor's report showing no significant structural problems) won't even get you your money back. I'm not sure that your ?1.3m - ?1.4m 'done-up' price isn't too high. It could take a good 5-6 months minimum to put right - with good builders and a good project manager. If there's a problem with the roof this weather has just knocked a few more pounds off the value!

Yes, in this rain, the house will struggle that much more!


I think the house done up to a really good standard could sell for 1.3m plus (particularly if extended on the ground floor) but it would take some time. Most house hunters in this area are looking for smaller more affordable homes it seems so it would take some patience. One would definitely need to factor in a reasonable amount of time to sell, particularly as the house is out of proportion with the garden which might limit the market for it somewhat.

I am not convinced that a 6 Bedroom house (which implies a family) will sell around here much over ?1m without something like a convincing garden - with a (probably ramshackle) garage in the middle of it this must go and you are probably looking at another bit of work to bring the garden into selling shape - that's more money, time and effort. A side entrance (to feed the garage) clearly has benefits - but it also has security issues - more expense to address.


I am now guessing you could be tying up money for a year or more before the house is ready to go - and that's assuming you are buying as an investment. Buying it as a home, with all that needs to be done is even more problematic - I don't think you could move-in in under 4-6 months - (assuming everything went swimmingly, and still leaving stuff to do) - which means funding two abodes.


Someone who could afford the asking price couldn't afford the time for a slow self-doer-upper I am guessing.

Even if bought to split it will still have a cost associated in bringing it up to saleable (or rent-able) value - particular when letting requirements are more stringent and mortgage interest relief no longer available. Buying, converting and selling-on as two flats is more likely now, I would guess - but those costs will be higher than uplift as a single house - you will need two kitchens for a start, and low-end installation will lend to low-end sales prices. The other issues raised above will still all need to be addressed.

Penguin-- my figures already included demolishing the garage and landscaping work. You can do that within the figures mentioned. I do agree that a house that size though with that size garden will take time to sell on for 1.3m. There are much smaller houses though with similar sized gardens that sell for 1m so its going to go for a premium to that, though the depth of the market is likely shallower. Anyone planning to live it will have to factor in rent for 6 months to a year.


I agree with cyclemonkey: this will probably go to an investor but at a much lower price. There is a reason its been sat on the market for 5 months.

Looking at the photos of the house picture 6 seems to me to be the one with the real damp problem, Which makes me wonder, is that room part of a flat roof extension or similar?

I brought a house in North Kensington that looked similarly awful, a survey revealed the damp was caused by a flat roof on a landing bedroom which needed re-doing, that, replacing the lead flashing (or whatever its called)and re-pointing a few bricks was surprisingly inexpensive.

Granted I then had to have the ceiling and wall replastered but it really wasn't a hideous outlay.

Thanks very much for the thoughts here. I think I share the view about what's causing the dampness (i.e. the flat roof and a botched or badly executed loft installation), and, of course, the property is not worth ?1.2 in its current condition. But it really turns on the structural survey. And yes, the garden is scarcely deserving of the term. As for who is living there/possibly squatting it, I guess it might be worth pressing Foxtons on that. I can mention what the postman and neighbours have said, and if they still maintain it's empty....

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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