Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Of course not. and because its you mr dale i wont even rise to the bait


But the mix of public and private housing was better in the past. I would definitely limit the number of houses per person tho. . Apart from that live and buy or rent wherever you like

I have never rented off a government but have often rented from private landlords. Long before the buy to let market was so inflamed. People often need to let their properties for reasons other than private gain


and in countries where renting is not seen as an inferior choice there are plenty of available lets. Being a private land lord is not inheretly bad. But we have surely passed the point where it was a way to make a living and has now entered a fantasy land of numbers. Landlords buying property and keeping them off the rental because its easier to let it sit vacant while its value rises

Cant agree with you on the nurse v commodity trader. The former would exist if the later never did.


by all means buy a house and do it up As you see fit. Its just recently that that is seen as investing


all im after is a more level playing field. Its not difficult to see how that might be achieved. But dont fret. I wont do anything and the government wont do anything. It will correct itself. Shame we cant be proactive and ease the pain first

Don't know if anyone saw recent comment from economist at ABN Amro (large investment bank for those of you not amongst the initiated). ABN commented in April that UK house prices are 50% over-valued. Economist there recently added the comment "Rising real estate rates could result in greater economic volatility. I believe this leaves housing markets vulnerable to a correction on a global scale." Referring to the commonly cited view that shortages of new homes in UK will continue to fuel house-price increases he observed that these opinions have "as much credibility as Britney Spears' latest comeback." Not encouraging news!


I have commented before on this site that, in the opinion of informed individuals I know, the UK housing market is not an appealing asset class for investment. Every new piece of news or opinion that comes along seems to reflect this. As already observed in this thread there is always the phenomenon of 'bull-market geniuses' - those who invest in a bull market (such as property over the last number of years) when value of everything is going up and then think that the profits they make as a result of a favourable market are testament to their investment genius. The result? These investors keep attempting to replicate the same 'get rich quick' magic and don't realise that the market can turn against them. When it does they are f***ed! The only public figure I have seen recently who has been optimistic about continued rise in property prices is Grant Bovey (husband of Anthea Turner and property speculator himself). Not someone I personally would view as an economic guru!


Just a word to the wise that nothing can keep going up for ever - not even house prices.

I've heard from a savvy developer friend when they come in they will charge a 1% fee and hold it at this rate till they squeeze the less able competition out. Once they've got their market share then will return it to their normal fee. Sharks real sharks.


Track property reductions at www.propertysnake.co.uk

More because they'll add ?XXXXXk to the price they tell you they can get - and let greed do the rest.

Most people can't be bovvered to change agents during a sale, so it doesn't matter if the inflated price is never achieved, of course.

They often have a huge amount of stock on their books (thanks to hyped prices and by this 'Foxtons are ruthless' word-of-mouth rubbish that perpetuates the myth) - half of which is just left to rot whilst they concentrate on the easy-sellers.

I've viewed a lot of properties with Foxtons, and it was all too easy to see the ones they weren't interested in. Viewings conducted by people who were visiting the property for the first time ("Aaaand here we have the, er, *looks round door* - the lounge!". Half the time the agent told me what the property would 'probably realise' - before I'd even had a chance to exhibit any interest in it, let alone put an offer in.

If you have a really nice property, Foxtons can get top dollar. But so can most of the other agents.

What the bloody hell is the point of selling your property for an inflated price when the fact that you are doing so means that the bugger who is selling you your next house will be doing the same thing?


All this kind of thing is doing is promoting the proliferation of these poxy, parasitic, purveyors of property ?profit?. Their gaudy store fronts and logo emblazoned minis and beetles are clogging up high streets from Penge to Perth.


I am also pretty sure that their heinous fashion sense is supporting sweat shops in the third world where those abominable mauve on mauve and pink on pink shirt and tie sets are made. (Although admittedly I do not AT THIS STAGE have any hard evidence to back this statement up)

"What the bloody hell is the point of selling your property for an inflated price when the fact that you are doing so means that the bugger who is selling you your next house will be doing the same thing? "


If only we could choose to sell our houses at a "uninflated" price based on an agreement the seller of the house we wish to move to would do the same! Unfortunately these two aren't linked other than that everyone wants to make as much as possible out of their home so they can buy bigger and better ones or just pay off the mortgage quicker.


At the end of the day simple market forces apply I think. If you don't want to pay "inflated" prices then don't., but you'll most likely find that others are (despite the Sun's endless house price scaremongering about crashes). A house is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If some people think that makes current buyers stupid then fine, although I think plenty of us on here might have suspected we were being a little stupid when paying so much for our properties in ED - only to find out it currently looks like a good investment.


No reason to blame Foxtons directly. I should point out here I hate Foxtons with a passion for their general bad practices (many alraedy documented in earlier threads), but blaming them for house prices being high does seem a little unfair...

Can I just draw people's attention to the Residential property in East Dulwich section of this website. People can advertise their house/flat or their requirements for a property in the area for free. Use it in conjunction with an Estate Agent or instead of. No charge. No catch.

"No reason to blame Foxtons directly."


I was by no means blaming them for anything Nutty. It was just an observation on how ridiculous the whole business really is when you take a step back and look at it. Come to think of it this does not only apply to the housing market.

Alan Dale Wrote:

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

> I definitely think they should be given credit by

> homeowners or blaimed by those who can't afford

> homes for their inflationary tactics. Whenever a

> new office opens there is a sharp upward spike in

> local values.

>

> They are perceived to be an indicator of

> gentrification. It's sort of a self fulfilling

> prophecy. Enviable position to be in.


Them along with things like a nice butchers, fishmongers, good restaurants, pubs etc. Obviously Foxtons come in to an area which is already on the up and maximises it. Surely it wouldn't try and go into a run-down area and do the same?


As I said before, I don't like Foxtons, but them arriving in ED is just another marker on it's upward spiral, they may cause a bit of a spike, but it's all just part of a general upward trend (for now).


Brendan - I agree it seems a bit ridiculous, but I'm not sure there's anything we can do to change it as it just seems to me to be down to human nature, Foxtons just have a good (if perhaps not very ethical?) business model...

Alan Dale Wrote:

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

> Jeremy- Because if ,like Brendan, you are not

> interested in maximising your sale price then I

> would be interested to know whether there is

> potentially an arbitrage opportunity.

>

> Are you offering a discount that would exceed my

> transaction costs and also cover my bridging

> finance and leave me with a healthy windfall on

> sale? If so then I might be able to help you

> out...


You're totally missing the point. Of course, my (modest) home is on sale for market value. But I would still prefer that the market had not gone up - I would have still been able to make the step up. Something's wrong when first time buyers have to find the best part of 300k for a one bedroom flat! But I guess it all depends on your point of view.

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

    • 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.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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