Properties on for £800k+ not selling? Why?

[MuckyBrass]

Near me, there are loads of houses on Rightmove for around £800k, £900k, even up to £1m ish which have sat on the market for a year or two. I've long been desperate to move to a bigger house so I check Rightmove all the time, but my budget is more like £600k so I've never viewed any of them, and really I'm just being nosy. They are all lovely houses, I'd buy any of them in a heartbeat if they were on for £600k. I don't understand. Are they really for sale? Or are they just sitting on Rightmove as pretty houses to make the estate agents's rosters look good? Some of them have had their prices reduced by £100k or even more at various points, but they're still evidently not selling at the £800k plus mark.

I'm in a small (but fairly naice) market town with no train station, not an easy commute to any major city, so I actually struggle to think who would be earning enough or have the cash around here to be the actual buyers for houses in that price bracket anyway. We're not talking loads of land, either. These are normal town houses, period properties mostly, small gardens, 4-6 bedrooms.

I wonder if it is downsizers buying the new builds? Often they want a smaller, lower maintenance property. They have the money and are in direct competition with people looking for their first family home.

As I take a short cut through a new development they all seem to be young.
Don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone that looks ( I know it’s sometimes hard to tell ) over 40

Thats the same around here in all of them
but a new care home has been built too

There's literally no property at all selling in our immediate area now. It's mainly flats and mainsonettes, with a real mix of new build and older properties.
We're in an area which is currently being developed, the developers claim that they are selling the new builds but you can see from the property price sites like Zooplah that this simply isn't the case. Older properties like ours have had huge price rises over the past 10-15 years but you have to drop the price significantly now to even get any viewings - let along offers.
There are quite a few developers involved, some "affordable" and "shared ownership" properties and some social housing, though most is for sale on the normal open market. The companies are still building but I do wonder if some of them might not make it through the next few years.

We're not in a new build but on a managed estate so low maintenance from our point of view. This suits us as downsizers, almost everybody who has bought her for the past few years has been older.

I've seen quite a few older people around the newer developments in this area, they're attractive flats sold at a premium, so very nice but also expensive and they're not really suitable for families: no green space for play areas, no parking provided with them except a few leased spaces in a supermarket car park. Really only suitable for people pre- or post-children.

Can you say the approx area
SE, NW ??

It is the same scenario in the village where I live. Anything on for less than £500k generally flies out. The ones staying on the market longest are the bigger detached houses on for £600k plus. The ones at a million or more have been on for so long

My opinion is that due to high stamp duty costs and interest rates, people aren't taking the steps towards the forever home now.
It's true in our case anyway. We're in a 4 bed detached worth about £500k. We're a family of 6 so space is tight but everyone has their own room as we use what was the playroom as a downstairs bedroom for my eldest (he is more than happy with this)
We always planned to upsize but a 5 bed (with a tiny 5th bedroom I may add) with bigger footprint is now min £750k (needing work) and the increase in monthly mortgage payment is huge plus stamp duty etc.
We're mid forties and I really don't want to be taking out a huge mortgage again.
So unless something drastic happens with interest rates I think we will stay put and focus on getting the mortgage we have paid off and then putting more into pensions and savings so we can hopefully help the children out with deposits

New homes generally go on the market 20% above the market price for a similar property that isn't straight off the builders.

Theres room for developers to shift price or 'take a hit' if needed as a result. They don't lose.

Greater London (West)

Flats and maisonettes haven't sold well in a few years. Firstly because of the fallout from Grenfell (insurance / mortgage issues) secondly because of lockdown and people wanting outside space and thirdly because of leasehold issues becoming increasingly problematic.

I wouldn't mind living in one in the future if I needed to (we did for a number of years) but the legal and liability issues put me right off and I don't think I'd consider seriously.

This isn't helping the downsizing market.

As for shared ownership. There's so many problems with the system it's untrue. I say this having previously done it and it working for us (to a point).

Interesting
So masses of new builds there too
I know North of you in Watford ( very much outskirts of London) is going through such a massive building boom Theyve started calling it Watford, London now on the marketing material.

Over the past few years it’s increased house prices hugely, wonder if it’s starting to affect sales now

Boomers have caused generation rent by using their gained assets and capital accrued from a high growth period to leverage assets out of the reach of the younger generation. Who’s going to want 4/5 bed properties when they can’t afford kids?
@Lightscribe
Boomers didn't do it out of spite, they didn't deliberately cause problems for the next generation, they were just making the best out of the opportunities that were available to them. Surely that's what we all do if we can?
(I'm not a boomer I am gen X)
Edit: I agree with you about landlords, but again they were just trying to get the best return on their money, as you say the fault is with the government for allowing it.

I don't think intention matters much. The outcome is what it is either way.

Intention I think does matter
The outcome is the same but blaming others for intentionally ie as pp said ‘boomers have caused’ does matter.

Can you say more about how it matters, in the context of the thread and/or specific post?

Blaming people who are not responsible feeds a narrative of them versus us, promotes a divided society ( which is a weak society ) enables people to justify being nasty to older people . We use language and it creates perceptions or reinforces prejudice

its a form of careless talk costs lives

I'm late to this thread so i'm sure all the relevant points have been made.
In a nutshell, it just comes down to affordability.
We have a huge housing bubble in the UK and a number of other similar countries, blown up over decades by deregaulation, encouraging the younger generation to take on increasing levels of debt, aided by ZIRP, while salaries have stagnated in the last 17 years at least and other costs have risen.

House prices have slowly been falling in the higher price range that you mention @MuckyBrass since 22/23. I expect the falls will accelerate soon, if they haven't already in the last 6 months, as more people lose their jobs, the wage increases slow or reverse, the cost of all essentials remain high and get higher. I have been predicting a recession for some time but the economy has just about scraped along at the bottom. At some point, it will tail downwards, and banks will become much more careful with their lending, lowering prices more rapidly.

Disregarding all that, if you just look at demographics, it is obvious that the Millennial generation are nowhere near as wealthy as the Boomers and will never be able to afford to buy their property in aggregate at the prices the Boomers think they are worth. In the end, a house is only worth what a buyer will pay and even if Mr and Mrs Jones won't reduce their house from 1.5 million, Mr and Mrs Smith may need to sell and will sell for £1.1 million if that is the highest offer they receive, lowering the price of the first couple's home.

Thank you, well said 👏🏻😊

So it sounds like your concern is you don't think they're responsible, ie you disagree with the factual framing?

I don't think it helps that boomers end up with the exclusive focus, in that this started post 08 crash and the younger Silent Generation were very much part of it too. Even older Gen Xs. But not sure the leveraging part can be argued with.

Boomers as a whole are not responsible no

they may have been in more positions of power when things were changing but that doesn’t mean other generations were not involved and it doesn’t mean all from that generation were involved

its a cheap , easy , thoughtless sound bite

This - the top part in particular. The sellers are likely to be empty nesters who aren't in a hurry to sell but would if someone gave them X amount which they need in order to downsize (and pay the stamp duty on properties >500k, when they likely do not currently have a mortgage or high outgoings in their current home) AND for to still have enough money to have a decent standard of living in retirement etc. Our neighbours were in this position - it was going to cost them more to downsize if they wanted to stay in the area than it was to keep their current house, so after a year on the market they decided to stay put in a too big house.

Like someone else said, I would love to move to a bigger property with desirables like a utility room and off road parking for more than one car. My small 4 bed semi in London is worth 900k-1m, and I am lucky to have a drive for a small car. What I dont have is a spare 160k to spend on stamp duty in addition to the extra capital to reach the 1.5m level required for such properties... which is why we won't be moving!

It's not about who held the positions of power. Several of the PMs who oversaw this period have been Gen X and the property market stagnation being discussed is happening on a Boomer PMs watch.

It's about successive administrations pursuing policies that favoured people who already had assets when it started, starting in the 00s. For most people that meant being old enough. Ie younger Silents, Boomers and older Gen X.

You make it sound like silent gen, boomers and gen X have committed a criminal act. Whilst they have just made the most sensible financial decision available at any given time. Do millennials and gen Z not do the same?

Focus on government policy and laws in the UK if not happy with the set-up.

The other issue is our housing stock is too old. Many of us living in Victorian and Edwardian housing which has its aesthetic appeal but is so unsuitable for modern living it costs a fortune to maintain and update. All the attempts to retrofit net zero features will only add more cost. The government needs to put in incentives for older buyers to shift their out-of-date unwanted properties and developers to improve or rebuild them. Stamp duty relief, inheritance tax relief on probate sales etc. Why build new (cheap, badly constructed) housing on green and brownbelt when existing residential housing is not fit for purpose (but does at least have infrastructure and demand) ?

No I really, really don't. There's just nothing in my post or indeed the one you initially quoted to even come close to that. It's you who thinks the issue of intention is important. I don't think something that doesn't matter should be taking up any oxygen at all.

That said, this is a good example of how difficult these societal conversations are, and what's liable to happen as the effects of the monetary policy being discussed play out. There'll be a lot of appeals to emotion.

Boomers didn't do it out of spite, they didn't deliberately cause problems for the next generation, they were just making the best out of the opportunities that were available to them. Surely that's what we all do if we can?

The issue is the ageing population, we have more over 65s than under 15s. People obviously tend to vote for what benefits them & successive governments have taken more from young people and invested less in them eg education.

The triple lock is a prime example, all the politicians know it should be passed but they won’t do it.