Older houses with minor works but great location or newer house ?

[tinkytot]

Currently under offer and have seen two houses that fit the requirements however torn between them for different reasons.

First there is a new house with nice aspect but the possibility that in time other houses may be built near by. The house is lovely has the right number of rooms but in the edge of the right location. We could move straight in and make it our own no work needed.

Alternatively we have an older house 20-30 years old in a much better location but horrific decor and needs some modernisation but otherwise structurally sound.

I prefer the new house as there would be less to do but there are more uncertainties like other building work opposite, possible development of plot next door. So the externals create the uncertainty. However the older house you know what you get as there are houses round and about, the house is bigger inside but needs decorating to our taste and maybe a bit of a change around of kitchen utility area.

I suppose it would be helpful to have others experiences as I have only ever had new build houses in the past.

Our other option is to hold off, go in to rented accommodation and wait until new year when more houses on market!

Thanks everyone

Location, location, location.

I'd go for the older house. Ime new builds can come with issues that are a pita to sort ( my brother spent a year getting the builders to rectify damp spread across an entire wall of his bedroom) also you pay top dollar for new builds, they are likely to lose some value.

A bigger house in a better location seems like a no brainer?

Older house every time for me.
I'd only go into a new build if I had to.
I like a house to have seen some things and grown some memories.

Would it make you mores nervous if the older house had been on the market for over two years and is on with its third agent?

Just spoken with one of the agents and they feel the house is too big for the garden and because the current vendor paid a lot of money for it they are expecting to recoup it this sale.

I would normally say the older house every time based on age alone but this one is 80s (?) so that's irrelevant really.

Go for the house with the right "bones" in the right location. You can change the decor, to a certain extent you can change the layout etc but y can not change the location.

It wouldn't worry me particularly. If the vendors want too much for it, that will become apparent at the offer stage and the house is only too big for the garden if you think it is.

It would worry me if several purchases had fallen through on it.

I would also go for the 'older' house - although personally I wouldn't consider a 1980s house to be old, but that's just me as we always choose period 'project' houses!

It sounds as though the area where the older one is located is better and also the newer house has the uncertainty of what could be built surrounding it as time progresses.

Regarding the length of time on the market, the house we are currently buying has been on for two years (and has also had two sales fall through - one because the couple buying split up and the other because the buyers deemed it as requiring too much work), as a result the asking price has come down around £75k so we feel we're getting a bargain!

Another perspective...The newer house should be warmer and cheaper to heat.
The older house probably needs more than decor. I am in an 80's house. It took us a few years and a fair bit of money to sort out all of the things that were making us cold. Make sure you have money for modernising the heating system, windows and insulation.

I think with the 'older' house the lady paid too much money a few years ago and has spent some money in work on it such as a conservatory and therefore needs to recoup the money from that.

The garden is very small and spoke with an agent that marketed the house and the feed back from 13 people was that the house was too big for the land it stood on ie the garden is small. The garden is also North facing.

I worry I would spend more money undoing someone else's decor, kitchen and bathroom and am a little nervous that it would take ages to sell unless the lady has been stuck on a price and now two years in may take an offer?!

To be honest I can talk myself in to or out of either house, DH are now wondering whether we should rent as perhaps neither are a good fit!

or look for a third option?

we love our 1980s house (which we call new). it is much much bigger than current new builds.it has storage and a large downstairs loo and large utility room.

its fab

Hang on, these agents advising you (against!) re the older house, assume they're trying to sell you an alternative?! So they're not unbiased! It spunds a no-brainer, the older house is in an estsblished, much better location. Though you mentioned its garden. Do you think it's so small? Too small for YOU? Generally 1980s house have much larger gardens than new houses.

Neither, wait for something else to come on the market in the new year.

Old house, if you really like the location.
Is the garden too small for YOU? are we talking 20 foot square or smaller?
If it's so small it would put future buyers off that's one thing - or has the conservatory eaten in to the land too much? Could you (would you want to) remove the conservatory to get more space back?

If anything is a dealbreaker or she won't consider what YOU want to offer, walk away. there will be other houses. One last thing - 1980s houses can be well put together, OR can be shocking. so if it's not good, again leave it.

I would always go for new build - but this one doesn't sound quite right with the unknown re other houses being built, so personally I would keep looking.

Newer house, lesser hassle - as long as the location is not 'wrong' in any way..