To ask about experiences of selling property in London now?

[gardenangels]

Conflicting reports from estate agents. ..

EssentialHumous - if you going to tell me I'm wrong by quoting ;facts' at me, it would be good if you would acknowledge that a) the stats you quoted proved me right - the majority of homeowners do own outright. And b) the '2015' stats you link turn out to take me to a link from 2013.

You neglect to mention that of those 6.9 million homeowners with mortgages, the average mortgage in 2016 is at only 48% LTV.

www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-3438660/The-regions-biggest-mortgage-debt-revealed-Use-interactive-maps-town-city-compares.html (apologies for Mail link but it was the first that came up, you're welcome to search for better ones).

So even if prices fell by 30%, the vast majority of homeowners would still be very comfortably outside negative equity.

I think that the London market will always polarise people because it is so expensive and yet desirable. Prices in London are insane and overall a bit of a correction would be a good thing (although I fully accept it would hit some people hard). I own property in London (Zone 3) and the house we bought in 2012 has doubled in value, partly due to Crossrail. Whilst on paper that is great and gives us the security of plenty of equity, it does bother me. Firstly, our area is likely to become less economically and possibly socially mixed. The income bracket of people who can afford houses in the area has changed completely so over time I expect the area to become more homogeneous which is not a good thing. Secondly, I have children and I wonder how they will ever afford a property.

To answer the OP's question, I think the market in my bit of West London has slowed and there are reductions appearing. I think the reductions are often due to people assuming that prices would carry on climbing quickly so were pricing in future growth that hasn't happened.

kirinm - well yes, of course. House buying is only risk free if you buy outright.

But that's obvious, surely?

Flowers - I don't think we actually disagree on the risks of buying. The difference in opinion is that you hope to benefit at the expense of others.

It sounds like you can't afford to get on the ladder so presumably even with a crash you won't be able to afford a place owned by those who DO NOT have a mortgage and DO have vast amounts of equity to cope with a crash. For you to benefit, you need the lower end of the market to crash and those are the people who have limited equity and have borrowed 5x their salary to get out of the rental trap. People just like you who know how hard it is to save when paying ridiculous rents.

It's also easy to dismiss people who DID take the risk as "not having earned" a profit or "only having made a profit on paper". You chose not to buy, you chose not to take the risk, but you also think that others shouldn't profit from a decision to do what you were too scared to do?

If you can say, hand on heart, that if you had bought 5 years ago and your house was now worth more that you would not be pleased and you would only sell it for what you paid for it regardless of the market and the fact that you would then not be able to afford to buy anything else, then good for you. But I bet you can't.

You cannot read the housing market by relying on Zoopla and Google. It's far more complicated than that.

flowers the point I was making is that the "majority" you're talking about is 500,000 people. It is what I'd like to call a Nigel Farage majority rather than one which points to an overwhelming number of homeowners being mortgage-free. About half are. Most of these are baby-boomers - the source I linked to points to the majority of those who are mortgage free having someone of 65+ (I think) in their household.

That's a very different situation from me, or kirin, or anyone who has bought over the last 3-4 years.

The data was published in 2015 and is the most recent I can find. Obviously you can look for something more recent, which would be very helpful, but I can't find it. This kind of data takes a bit longer to collect, most likely.

Chaz yes i would say the same - in my area seem to be quite a few price reductions, but it seemed to me even post brexit vote, sellers were increasing their asking prices, so the reductions are not on prices previously achieved.

Latest land registry individual sales price figures in area that i look at showed very few new house sales in the most recent period, but that is an unreliable guide as it excludes certain categories (house bought through company, btl if that is known, etc).

Not sure that brexit will lead to a price fall - if overseas investors are attracted to london because of sterling's fall that may outweigh other factors. It's as impossible to predict as ever really.

I also think that this is a debate better had without sarcasm and eye-rolling emojis. It's an emotive enough issue anyway, and this doesn't help.

Oh, Essential - I'm not in B but I believe the top of my road edges into B. I'm at the bottom near the gang crime

"The difference in opinion is that you hope to benefit at the expense of others."

No, I don't.

(Well, OK, if they're BTL landlords selling their 2nd, 3rd or 20th investment property, then yes, I'd benefit from their loss without compunction.)

But generally, as I've already explained, I'm hoping to benefit from lower prices which will benefit millions currently priced out, and millions more who want to move up the market and buy a more expensive property. I have many friends in too-small properties who cannot afford to move up from eg a flat to a house, because the steps are so huge. If all prices come down, then those steps shrink and that benefits them too, and allows them to move.

The only people who really are damaged by price falls are those at the top of the chains who were expecting huge unearned rises to pay for their pensions by downsizing, and BTL landlords.

Those who have 'earned 30%' in my area in the last few months haven't actually 'earned' anything at all - those were merely paper rises, unrealisable without selling. If those paper profits vanish again, they will be not a penny poorer off. They will continue to enjoy living in their properties.

If you bought from a BTL landlord, you'll be kicking out a tenant.

If prices fall, prices fall for everyone. The step up between flat and house doesn't get any easier.

kirin ooh! I'm up your way a lot for the cafe between the parks.

We'd actually like to move closer for the great school, but - you're right - property there does not seem to budge. People seem to just hang on and not sell. I'm on the side of B near the park which isn't flat, and prices are dropping, but unfortunately not enough for us. Stubborn sellers and the arrival of Foxtons from Dulwich (why??) haven't helped.

"I have many friends in too-small properties who cannot afford to move up from eg a flat to a house, because the steps are so huge."

BUT ACCORDING TO YOU, THEY MUST BE HAPPY WITH THAT, BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE "SECURITY" OF OWNING THEIR OWN HOMES.

Can you not see the inconsistency of what you are saying? Or do you tell these friends who are stuck that they should be grateful and shut up?

Essential - the street has a lot of rental properties and as rents are rising, I guess there's no inclination to sell by LL.

We are the only owner / occupiers in our building. It's a real shame as the flats are perfect for FTB. Ours was / is an absolute state as its been neglected by its landlord owner for 15 years.

When we were looking we refused outright to view anything with Foxtons. I think they've arrived in Peckham too.

The problem with Foxtons is that they look so slick, with their wine bar appearance and their cute minis, and people fall for it, so they often do have the best properties on the market. In reality, they almost inevitably overvalue it. I would only consider using them if I chopped them down by at least 10%! About 10 years ago I went to look at a flat that had been valued at £500,000 - it was in SW7 and had membership to one of those private gardens. I thought that it sounded cheap, but banged in an offer anyway. The next day I got told by the agent that it was going on with Foxtons, who had valued it at £1,100,000!!!

It eventually sold for about £800,000. So Foxtons either cocked up, or deliberately lied to get the work, and then had to bring down their seller's expectations.

Yeah I agree, Foxtons put things on for ridiculous prices. When we were looking for our last place to rent, they wanted us to pay £5k to secure a place despite the fact we weren't moving in for another 6 weeks. Needless to say, that was our one and only conversation with them.

temp round my way (and probably nationally) Foxtons does properly dodgy shit. Earlier this year, they had a house up for sale along with another agent. Other agent sold the house. Come October, I get a Foxtons email saying the house is back on the market. Phoned other agent to check - nope, house sale completed a month beforehand. Foxtons is just farming for emails, it seems. This must be illegal, surely?

We had one on our street at £800k with Foxtons. Didn't sell. Now at £725,00 with local agent. Still not selling, but never mind.

kirin that makes sense. There's been one for sale for ages literally on the roundabout with the school on one side and park on the other, occasionally drops in price, but no-one's going for it. From the fact that it's newly renovated I would guess it was rented and LL did it up to sell. The "second bedroom" is the size of my arse.

Yes I've seen that one. It has about 10sqm less than our 1-bed but is on for significantly more money than we paid I don't like the way they've done that one up at all and the garden is totally odd. I wouldn't be paying for the 'garden' part of any of those flats.

They got done a while ago for putting up "for sale" boards in houses that they weren't selling, ie free advertising. And they lost a Court case about tenant rental fees.

But they still look good, so people still use them. Amazing!

If you owned a place, would you be hoping for a 30% drop in its value so other people could buy somewhere? Would you sell your place at 2/3 of its market value so that someone else could get on the ladder?

if I'd already made a profit on it even with a 30% drop then yes.

I would rather see travel subsidised than people in negative equity. I think it's a lot more do-able, it's just that the government lacks the will to do it.

That is NEVER going to happen.

Do you travel by train? I trust by your comments that you dont.

Every year they rise and rise and rise and the service isnt any better.

No property needs to devalue.

Foxtons put a for sale board on my house once - they did get it taken away pretty quickly - I would never use them, and don't even look at houses they are selling. I don't like Estate Agents who are too pushy.

If you owned a place, would you be hoping for a 30% drop in its value so other people could buy somewhere? Would you sell your place at 2/3 of its market value so that someone else could get on the ladder?

if I'd already made a profit on it even with a 30% drop then yes.

I don't know you, so I have to take you at face value. But I honestly think you'd be pretty unique in saying, "OK, this house is worth £500,000 in the current market, but I'm going to sell it to this couple for £350,000. Sure, that means I can't afford anywhere else, unless I move miles away, but that's fine by me, because I've already made a £50,000 profit, and that's enough for me."

And yes, sometimes I travel by train. I have the joy of the tube train every day too. Of course subsidised and better travel is never going to happen. But it's a happier fantasy than hoping other people lose out so that you can profit, IMHO.

The very idea that people should get outside of the M25 and have a massive commute at significant cost due to current rail fares so prices of homes can stay at too high prices for the benefit of those who could afford those prices in the first place is so selfish.