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've seen lots of reductions on new builds in the last year. Particularly notable were a couple of very significant reductions on expensive new builds in Sandbanks, Poole. They were around 25% of the original price. Sandbanks is an expensive area and has long attracted those looking for second/third properties. Apart from this, I've seen multiple other reductions, although they were more in the 2/3-7/8% range so far.

paused even!

Perhaps because local authorities allow Council Tax Premium (applied to second/subsequent properties) exemptions on certain properties for a certain timescale, if they meet certain criteria, such as being in probate or being for sale.

I agree with you, although this all started long before the early 00s, in the early 80s when deregulation started, increasing in the 90s, which eventually caused the GFC in 2008. The response was simply more pumping up of bubbles, as you say, transferring more wealth to those who already owned assets. It has been going on ever since.

People always get offended and upset when it is suggested the older generations should take some responsibility for these mistakes in policy, whether that is those in charge of the decisions or those who voted for them or those who took advantage of the policies to the detriment of their children and grandchildren. Obviusly, not every single boomer was personally responsible but, as a group, younger silents, boomers and older Gen X's did vote for these policies. There have also been threads on here recently about proposed increases to tax on properties and also on other SM platforms. The level of disgust and entitlement from some of these older folk when it was suggested that they perhaps ought to pay more tax on their property (essentially, a minor wealth transfer from the wealthy, mainly older folk to te poorer younger folk) was quite shocking. So yes, some are responsible and it is no bad thing to encourage some honest discussion about these things, even if many clearly do not want to hear it!

It matters because you can’t say someone intentionally did something when they are just living their lives

If a boomer bought a house because they could afford it.
It then goes up in value because they all are.
They then sell at the valued price because that’s the value and that’s what’s offered.
It’s not their fault that they could afford it and not their fault that down the line other generations can’t afford it. They haven’t intentionally as a whole age group deliberately and intentionally made life difficult from others.

They are simply living their lives

Just as other ages are using
for ample
fas guzzling cars and kids are dying of asthma attacks. Shall we blame ever driver that drives by their home
Just as people eat stuff with palm oil. Shall we personally blame every shopper with it in their trolley for killing wildlife and worsening the ozone layer.

Intention is everything

Even the ones 400k+ not selling where I am, lots for sale for years and the sellers desperate to move. People just don’t have that money

You're the one who introduced the word intention to the discussion, though. It's fine for you to believe intention is everything, but you don't then get to tell other people they shouldn't say something was done intentionally when they didn't.

Not sure there's much good evidence on which generations are consuming most palm oil either? Whereas we do know who's got the assets and has benefitted most from the last 15-20 years of monetary policy.

We're lucky here with value and selling time in the past. My youngest DD has been here for nearly 15 years, we've been here for 5, and prices have risen with the market with properties normally selling quickly. They're not high rise, have no cladding, are share of freehold and are well managed. Also there are generous, maintained grounds around our properties and allocated parking.

This is a mixed estate, mainly privately owned but with some social housing which was included from the start, and we have none of the elderly ghetto feel that we would have if it were a development for older people. It is strange to be living in a flat again after 50 years but we do like the freedom from maintenance.
The newly developed local properties obviously don't have cladding problems but the other aspects you mention do apply.
I agree with you about shared ownership, Our eldest DD has MH problems and we were considering shared ownership of a property with a housing association for her but all the disadvantages seemed to be on the side of the tenant, (including all ongoing costs) whilst any future profits had to be shared.

Wow apologies for all those typos 🤣🤣

I think it's more than that, apart from the over-inflated prices people are scared of committing to buy because they're not convinced that prices won't fall. Someone earlier wrote that it was good for first time buyers because often prices are lower now, but buying your first property is scary enough anyway without the fear of negative equity.

I responded to your post on intention ( see attached )
I have no idea who brought it first up
Not me though

Agree
although negative equity is only an issue if you want to sell
or
get another mortgage on a property with very little equity.

At a guess the surge in moving during the pandemic then again with the stamp duty holiday means a lot of people that were thinking about moving have already done so

Theres bound to be a downturn afterwards

2 houses on our street went to auction recently and did quite well

there are definitely still buyers but the property market has stalled (in London anyway). My daughter went to look at a flat yesterday. Estate agent said developers are swooping and buyer cheap flats as so many aren’t selling that they are taking loads off the asking price.

The ones at the v higher end are not selling for 2 reasons - lots on the market as wealthy people leave and fear of the new tax that is coming in.

one of my former bosses has 2 large properties - a house in Surrey and a flat in London and is selling both and buggering off abroad. And he’s not the only one I know. There simply aren’t enough wealthy people coming in to the country to buy at that level. I drove through St George’s hill the other day and it’s like a ghost town. Million pound houses falling into disrepair.

lots of uncertainty in the market never helps - people think it may go down further so wait… I’m glad I’m not in a position where I need to sell now as it can’t be much fun!

'million pound houses falling into disrepair'
@Mumsknot your phrase there puts me in mind of those videos about abandoned celebrity mansions, a very expensive property can be a liability rather than an asset!

I think all the prospect of mansion tax, stamp duty changes, council tax changes have made people sit tight for now. We live in an expensive part of the country, and are lucky enough to have a budget of c.£1.5m, but holding back on purchasing due to this.

We live in a large, affluent village where the cheaper properties seem to sell quickly, but those worth 600k+ seem to stick for longer. Young people are buying the cheaper properties, but apart from the usual ex-Londoners, it only seems to be the older generation that are buying the more expensive houses, some of whom are ‘downsizing’ from what must be huge houses! Any houses worth 1.5M and above that need work are stagnating for ages, often with sizeable price drops, and usually end up selling to these older boomers / young silents who also have the extra cash swilling around for all the renovations. My husband (a builder) makes a lot of his living from these cases!

There Is a road near me which is lined with beautiful houses all set up off the road and as I was driving down it the other day, I thought to myself that it has the air of being solely populated by older people who have little incentive to leave the family homes. My parents are a case in point: they love their house; it has parking and storage for all their ‘stuff’ 🙄 and they have big fat golden pensions to fund it. They’ve considered downsizing but argue that the costs of moving are so high why on earth would they want to?

Another consideration is that by keeping the family home, more of their estate is protected from inheritance tax and also care home fees should one of them have to go in before the other.

The trouble is, they also have crap taste in decor so when the time comes for my siblings and I to sell their house, we will probably have to embark on some extensive renovations in order to get the thing sold.

I’m generally in favour of taxation, so I never thought I’d say this, but unless Labour does something about stamp duty, inheritance tax and income tax margins, we are not going to have any mobility in this country especially in terms of the property market.

Apologies yes wrong poster. But the rest applies- you can't tell someone who didn't say something in the first place not to say it, and that isn't an argument for why it matters.

Remind me.

How in touch were these gen xers with the concept of 'a mortgage'?

Lol. Come on, I'm sure Cameron needed 95% LTV to get on the ladder! The one with the most mortgages was probably Blair when you think about it...

But this is why there's not a lot of point making it about who the leaders were. By definition these aren't representative people, and even if they were they're too small a group to matter. What's significant is the generational, society wide data we have on the impact of recent monetary policy.

Gen X Prime Ministers
David Cameron
Liz Truss
Rishi Sunak (borderline Millennial/GenY)

Boomers
Boris Johnson
Keir Starmer

Please let me know which one has a 90% mortgage?

Let's take Cabinet Members ...

Given the whole scandal with Angela Rayner was about her having a mortgage that mere mortals would not have been eligible for according to the rules, I don't think we have much about first hand experience going on here...

When I sold a house a few years ago, and I think at the top of the market, I told the estate agent (local and very big in the area) that I wanted them to price the house realistically and not overprice and then need to reduce.

They assured me it was worth a good 10% more than I thought. They priced it at that price "off market" and two weeks later dropped it when it went on line. I got an offer pretty quickly, below the asking price and at the price I had assumed it was worth in the first place! I accepted!! I seriously doubt that the property has increased in value in those 2 plus years.

The estate agents were 100% overpricing everything and there was an absolute frenzy in the area. Looking now, most properties have been reduced and are sitting on the market for some time.

And as other have said, building work and materials are now so expensive, that if the property needs work or even just refreshing, that needs to be factored in.

Yes, so again this is why there's no point whatsoever trying to make it about the ages of the people in power during the relevant period. Just checking you're aware that's my point?

Yes to your point about negative equity, but I think that many first time buyers know that they will probably outgrow their first home fairly quickly.
From what I've read, some buyers are increasingly hoping to buy a slightly larger property rather than what would have been their expected first or subsequent buy - which is sensible in view of the true cost of moving and may result in them waiting in order to be able to buy a larger home.
I agree about the stamp duty reduction, saving up to £15000 was a pretty good incentive for a first time buyer, or encouragement for homeowners to move then rather than wait. It certainly got things moving where we previously lived.
We were amongst those who benefitted from the surge during the pandemic, having sold within a week of the end of the first lockdown. However I don't know whether these were sales that were simply accelerated by a year or so or whether they were sales that would otherwise not have happened.

From what I've read, some buyers are increasingly hoping to buy a slightly larger property rather than what would have been their expected first or subsequent buy - which is sensible in view of the true cost of moving and may result in them waiting in order to be able to buy a larger home.

I've heard this too. It makes sense given that the average FTB age has increased, the concept of the ladder doesn't exist in the same way as it used to and that ever more properties will incur at least some stamp duty.

Yes, we moved on from our first home in just four years, but then jumped a stage and stayed for more than 25. I think that the average time owner occupiers stayed in the 1980s was around 8 years, but now it's 17+. (I've just googled that so hope it is accurate!).