Location Location - talk about overpaying!!!(31 Posts)
Watched Phil & Skitsy last night and, as usual, prepared to watch them trying desperately to haggle someone down by five grand on a half million pound house - which we all know is practically impossible to achieve in a recession
Usually I don't know any of the properties they feature but last night - Bingo!
They had a couple who wanted to buy a 2 bed flat in Charlton on the market at £199950.
Phil begrudgingly pointed out that the gutterings and fascias needed replacing but that a builder had said "it wouldn't worry him" - ha ha - presumably because (1) he's a builder and (2) he's not buying the place
This flat had been on the market for a fair old while with no takers possibly because (as Phil eventually revealed) it was nearly down to 70 years on the lease so was virtually unmortgageable.
The couple loved it - and Phil suggested bidding £193,500 (I nearly peeed myself at that point) which he thought was really a low offer because the vendor was going to extend the lease, and really, they were lucky the price was being increased!!! (on an otherwise unsaleable flat)
The vendor rejected £193,500 - Phil talked the couple up to £197,500 - the vendor rejected that too - but finally relented at £198,000.
Phil Spencer, in one of the most stagnant housing markets of all time, on a flat which was practically unsaleable, had achieved the princely discount of 1% off the asking price.
In the closing roundup, it was revealed that the couple had pulled out because the vendor was dragging his heels (having not found a place to move to when putting the flat on the market).
So the vendor lost the sale of their flat at £198,000 - Cheers Phil - mine's a Bolly!
The same flat is now on the market at £179, 950 including a newly extended lease.
The couple - no thanks to rubbish Phil (ace negotiation skills) - had a very lucky escape from wasting £20k.
The vendor must be kicking themselves - £20k - they had it and blew it!
They probably won't get £179,950 now either.
But Phil, who is supposed to research the market and act for the buyers in the show - almost royally shafted them.
Missed that bit, thanks for clarifying. Leasehold issues worries me.....
Lighttrain - if the seller is extending the lease, that's fine. Although I'd want hard evidence it had actually been been done before handing over my money and so would any solicitor worth his salt.
Redhelen's right, it wasn't sorted when they first viewed, was only mentioned at second viewing and then IIRC the sellers tried to argue they were doing some kind of favour, and used it as a bargaining tool to refuse to drop the price. In fact, the flat was was unmortgageable without the extension, so the sellers were only doing what was strictly necessary for their own interests.
Not in the same league at all but when we bought our previous house, the owner tried to charge us extra for the garden shed. People are sometimes amazingly greedy and petty. We said fine, take the shed out then - given there was no access to the garden other than through the house we would have been amused had she gone to all that trouble!
Agree with posters re: the 'opening offer' why would you say that ever?!
I love lll but IMO there are too many of the shows focused on London searches they need to get around more
Lightrain - at the time they first viewed it they didn't have the extended lease in place.
Oh, and I also think that LLL advise is usually spot on. The market has changed a lot in the last few years, so negotiation you see from 2008 might look crazy now,but that's how it was. Kirstie and phil do say when they think something is overpriced (I watched 2 old LLLon more 4 last night and in both episodes, they advised couples not to pay more than x under asking price as too much).
Friend who was a researcher on LLL said it really limits your choices as a homebuyer as many vendors refuse to
let phil and Kirsty over the threshold allow filming.
I can't stand all the "this couple are soooo unreasonable schtick" that goes on.
Edam - talk to me about the lease issue. I have similar to deal with for a property I want to sell but can't in this market (so currently let). If the sellers were planning to extend the leasehold and include in cost of flat at sale, why is this a huge issue? It wouldn't be a problem for the buyers with new lease I place, would it? In fact, the buyers would have maximum leasehold terms in their favour - this is a positive...?
Sorry for the hijack!
Just caught up with LLL. Actually I am going to speak in Phil's defence.
If you watch at about 34 mins, just before Charlton house, he clearly seems to say THEY found the house.
These programmes are often set up anyway. Home by the sea featured our area a while ago and showed, among "local" properties, one that is the other side of the Ribble estuary so, yes it's only a few miles away as the crow flies but is over 30 miles by road. It later transpired, according to local gossip, the couple featured weren't even househunting, they knew someone who worked for the production comany and were just asked to pretend for the programme.
OMG, watching it now and the Charlton flat is on the same road as my mums was.
Have to say they have shown the best of Charlton, it's not all like that!
I saw it too. DH and I were rofl ( we don't get out much) at Phil's 'negotiating' tactics. In fact I'm afraid 'making an opening offer' has become a bit of catchphrase chez Ogre for abject ineptitude. I remember the incident Lala refers to as well. I am always astonished when anyone actually buys a house through the show. Top entertainment though.
Agree, I saw that episode and it looked really odd to me. The lease issue is huge but Phil didn't treat it as important at all. Why did he say 'opening offer'? Why ignore the fascias and guttering?
And why was he trying to persuade a couple who wanted to start a family to live in a second floor flat with no lift?
When was this episode on and what channel? Would love to catch up.
I thought Charlton looked much nicer than some parts of London that they have on the show & not overpriced. The explanation that things weren't moving fast enough didn't quite ring true to me cos they were in rented anyway so presumably could afford to wait a bit!
I think Chalrton just isn't trendy, I reckon in a few years time it will be on the up.
When we sold my mums flat there, I thought we were going to end up giving it away
I haven't seen the episode but am going to watch it as I know the area well.
Wouldn't trust Kirsty and Phil though, not after seeing the kind of tat she thinks is acceptable on Kirsty's homemade(vintage my arse)
That Charlton flat with the views seemed a good price to me!!Normally London prices are shocking!
Wherearemysheets. Kirsty and phil own the production company which makes their programmes
The negotiations over the Charlton flat were intense apparently.
I hope that couple did a bit more research into Charlton and realised the crapness of Phil's negotiating skills. They seemed really nice.
The only people on LLL who don't overpay seem to be the ones which don't take Phil or Kirsty's advice on the opening offer.
There was an episode of LLL some years ago with a couple relocating from London to (I think) Lincs. They found some run-down old pile that was on the market for less than #500k and managed to get the buyers into a bidding war where they offered about #650k in a sealed bid. Cue Kirsty congratulating them and saying how totally worth it the house was. A week later, massive cock up at the estate agency and the couple receive a letter intended for the vendor saying that the nearest bid was about about #175k below theirs... The couple withdrew from the sale and, iirc, bought their own house with no further help from the experts .
I thought that! I love it when the Do London- , " Brian and Maureen have a budget if £500K " and then they show the poor bastards a dank, damp shoe box above a kebab shop that's on the market for £510 K but they think the vendor might take an offer
The vendors get all excited at hideous little shoe boxes anyone 5 miles out of London wouldn't keep a cat in!
What was weird was that both parties were basically looking for the same thing: a period 2-bed in south London - so why didn't they show the couple (who I thought were just lovely btw) the woman's properties as well?
I thought the, " opening offer" comment from Phil was absolutely out of order and almost as if he were being played/paid by the agents?
Also shocked that they assured the other woman that the house she wanted to buy could be hers for her 209 budget. And then the vendors turned her down
I dont get these
too high initial offers that Phil & Kirsty put in. They always seem way too close to the asking price.
i would have thought most people go in at 15% off the initial asking price with a view to agreeing on around 10%.
we I contemplated using Phil & Kirsty when we relocated here but glad DH absolutely vetoed it as they would have probably cost us £££
On 'Secret Agent' Phil is always going on about how the aim of the show is to re-start the housing market.
So he, as an individual, in the real world, knows the housing market is in the doldrums.
Yet, with Kirsty, they insist on portraying the housing market as thugh it's still 2007.
Who drives the show's theme?
Is it Channel 4 or the production company or Phil and Kirsty?
And is the aim to convince buyers that 'low offers' are bad and high offers 'realistic'?
Is it sponsored by an Estate Agents organisation - otherwise it just doesn't make sense anymore.
It's not as though they can claim the market has changed since they made the show either - they only filmed it a few months ago.
Just seems deluded to me.
Join the discussion
Please login first.