Im calling it.....

[Hellsmk2]

myself and my wife are looking to buy our first home right now. We've been looking now for around 6 weeks and have found nothing that has potential, needs work for the right price etc (Southampton). We've managed to save up a lot over a few years, tightening our belts, not living lavishly, no holidays and the result is £47k all to go down as a deposit. We are now living with inlaws temporarily which is super depressing, whilst we try and find our first home. We need to find a place fast as I'm not getting any younger, we want to start a family etc. It's not great at the moment, feel like a bit of a failure and all that.

We've had a £210k mortgage agreed at just under 3% so we are looking around the 240-250k mark for a property. But what that gets you down here is either a right dump in the middle of chaville, or a pokey little 2 bed with no gardens, no potential to expand the property etc. It's very depressing it really is. Just don't know what to do at the moment.

Move up north. We have a 5 bed detached house in the countryside for 225K. All bedrooms fit king-size beds and the area is beautiful.

 

[Slam62]

I wonder if a lot of that debt to value ratio is better explained by big historic price rises rather than people buying in cash. I happened to have a healthy deposit when I bough but even if I'd bought with a tiny deposit I'd have been able to re-mortgage at a much better LTV within 2 years. As it stands not I've got approx 2/3rds equity in my flat and a big chunk of that is simply thanks to it increasing in value at a very nice rate after buying it.

Firstly, i don't think house price rises should be a thing anyone considers. A house is a home, not a money making machine.

Secondly, have a serious think about where the money to buy at increased prices is coming from, it's not organic wage growth.

Thirdly, try and guess what the government want, has the increase in housing costs become a bad thing for them?
The government want a trouble free workforce and low wages. The EU was a good way of achieving this, but then Cameron had the referendum.
So where does that leave us, we won't know for yet another 3 years. However they are doing a good job of killing aspiration and hope. In my view the reversal of this should be the new governments priority.

 

[Rifte]

Firstly, i don't think house price rises should be a thing anyone considers. A house is a home, not a money making machine.
.

Ideal world scenario, but house price rises and falls are an inevitable market force that you would be naive not to consider. Sure buy any house and not consider it's asset potential if:

1)You do not plan to move
2)You do not care about the inheritance that you pass on to your family.
3)You do not care about the ability to move lenders and get a good deal on a new mortgage rate.
4)You do not care about pumping and investing 20+ years of your life into an asset that might not get the rise that you need to upsize because you didn't consider the long game.

 

[dowie]

Firstly, i don't think house price rises should be a thing anyone considers. A house is a home, not a money making machine.

Secondly, have a serious think about where the money to buy at increased prices is coming from, it's not organic wage growth.

Thirdly, try and guess what the government want, has the increase in housing costs become a bad thing for them?
The government want a trouble free workforce and low wages. The EU was a good way of achieving this, but then Cameron had the referendum.
So where does that leave us, we won't know for yet another 3 years. However they are doing a good job of killing aspiration and hope. In my view the reversal of this should be the new governments priority.

Why don't you think house prices should be 'a thing anyone considers'? I don't see what relevance the statement 'A house is a home, not a money making machine.' has to that? Why would that imply that they shouldn't be considered?

I'm not sure what relevance the second and third points have to my post?

 

[Slam62]

The housing market in general is an overhead for the economy. Makes a lot of money for a few individuals but just drains the productive parts of the economy.

Apart from a few cases, such as providing rented accommodation and improving uninhabitable property. But these need to be tempered to sensible levels.
In the past, the controls have been the availability of social housing and the limitations from lending criteria.
Social housing is now very limited and the money lenders have been given carte Blanche.

Now i recognise that if you have recently purchased a highly leveraged property you would like prices to rise and if they don't you may be in financial troubles. However you pays your money and takes your choice.

 

[coupe69]

Kensington is more expensive than Mayfair. It is the most expensive area in the UK.

According to the house price index there's really not much in it. In fact the City of Westminster actually has higher average house prices at £2,115,155, whereas the borough of Kensington and Chelsea has average prices of £1,894,061. Also interestingly Kensington and Chelsea is the worst annual performer in London with an annual change of -19.4%, whilst City of Westminster is one of the best performers up 10.9%.

 

[Martini1991]

What do you mean "took the risk" ? The problem with this country is that everyone views homes as an investment or a money making scheme. The only "risk" to buying yourself a home is whether or not you can pay the mortgage. Whether or not you make money on it shouldn't even be a factor

Agreed.

I bought a new build with my girlfriend, for total space etc it cost more than any older build would. But I'm 25 now, renting would cost me more money. I'm paying 137.5 a month for my half of the mortgage. It'd be about double that in rent for any nice house we wanted.
I expect the house to go negative equity, in fact someone's selling one of them for about 6K less than the new price already. But what we've got can be expanded, it's our home, not an investment etc.

 

[delta0]

According to the house price index there's really not much in it. In fact the City of Westminster actually has higher average house prices at £2,115,155, whereas the borough of Kensington and Chelsea has average prices of £1,894,061. Also interestingly Kensington and Chelsea is the worst annual performer in London with an annual change of -19.4%, whilst City of Westminster is one of the best performers up 10.9%.

They are all pretty close in that area. I would take the percentages with a pinch of salt. The volumes at that end of the market are so small that it takes a £10m property to sell 1 week and a £5m one then next and it can make it look like a massive fall in prices.