Who will buy these homes?

M0nica

We have just moved from an expensive area, and for most of this year the market has been ticking along very happily. 2024 was the disaster year, but even then the viewings kept coming in.

Our buyers did not complete until July, and seemed unaffected by the change in stamp duty. We complete tomorrow, we would have liked to have moved before April, but the higher stamp duty hasn't stopped us moving.

Logic at last.

Stamp duty is a very small portion to buying. We've never bought since the home we bought when we married, stamp duty innt stopping us.

A lot of people are moving from London and greater London/Essex areas such as Dagenham right up to Braintree and buying up a good proportion of the new builds in the South Suffolk area. They can get more bang for their bucks and have a bit left over.

the higher stamp duty hasn't stopped us moving

Hilarious really. It wouldn't would it? What is it, a few hundred quid?

4allweknow

Never have understood what an affordable home is. At one time I thought it was linked to government buying part and purchaser buying to rest with opportunity to buy back what government owned. There needs to be a lot more L.A. housing built. Currently it seems orivate builders only have to include a very small proportion of L.A. housing in a development. Why can L.As not build whole developments like they used to

Our LA have attempted that 4allweknow not one house built in the eight years since it started, £500m in debt.
A combination of arrogance, ignorance and an inability to admit they’ve been wrong and stop. LA’s are not house builders now, no in house expertise, so they contract out to people who tell them what they want to hear, take the ££££’s, state it’s unviable and walk.
I could go on, but won’t!

We moved into a new build last year having previously lived in a HA property. We could have bought that property for a similar price to our new home but we didn’t feel right about buying socially housing. In addition the house needed a lot of work doing to it. They’re similar in size but we now have a garage and a smaller garden. We looked at older properties but the ones we could afford were mostly in need of modernisation, so we went for a new build which ticked most of the boxes for us.

Norah

David49

It's not always a choice, though.

“People often have to move to more expensive locations for work.“

And get higher wages for working there

Usually wages are higher in expensive locations.

I'd think retired people wouldn't be impacted.

Usually wages are higher in expensive locations

So about £2,000 pa extra for a teacher in London is enough to compensate for London house prices?
A nurse? About the same.

We need these essential workers and they are priced out by the huge disparity in house prices.

StripeyGran

*the higher stamp duty hasn't stopped us moving*

Hilarious really. It wouldn't would it? What is it, a few hundred quid?

A few thousand.

If you moved home before April 1st 2025, you you didn't have to pay stamp duty on properties costing up to £250,000. However, starting from April 1, 2025, homes priced between £125,001 and £250,000 will attract a 2% stamp duty rate.

Another sly tax by Reeves.

Allira

^If you moved home before April 1st 2025, you you didn't have to pay stamp duty on properties costing up to £250,000. However, starting from April 1, 2025, homes priced between £125,001 and £250,000 will attract a 2% stamp duty rate.^

Another sly tax by Reeves.

I assume that most buyers in that price range will be first time buyers, and therefore exempt, but I do think that if we have to have stamp duty it should kick in at a much higher level than £125k, which won't buy much in any area. As with many incremental taxes it is those on lower incomes who are impacted most. 'A few thousand' might be small fry to some, but it can be a lot to a young couple who need an extra bedroom for an expected baby, for instance.

Apparently there is talk of abolishing SDLT in favour of a sales tax paid by the vendor on houses selling for more than £500k. I don't know how it will work, but I assume the rates would have to be high to compensate for all the money lost at lower priced sales. What do people think about the idea? It might 'level up' (or down, depending on your POV) so that geographical mobility is a possibility for those who can't afford to take better paid jobs in the SE. I can imagine there would be a lot of houses capped at £499k and then a leap to the ones attracting stamp duty (or whatever it will be called) as vendors will add the tax to the house price if it is over £500k. I assume that it would add to IHT income too, unless the heirs plan to live in an inherited property.

I think it would be a good thing to level out house prices across the country, but if this new tax comes in I would hope that people who had recently paid SDLT as a buyer would be exempt from the new tax if they had to sell within, say, two years. Or longer depending on the rate of the tax.

It's tricky, as much as I want to see the UK become a fairer and more equal society, our homes are usually our biggest asset, and major changes to housing/mortgage rates and taxation always result in casualties, most of whom are not profiteering, but just people who need somewhere to live. I would like to see much higher tax on BTL properties, second homes and Air B&Bs though, and I think that would be a very popular move.

The practical consequence of Stamp Duty is to add to the cost, it just gets added to the mortgage in most cases and has to be taken into account. Reversing the tax to the vendor will just increase the value of the property by that much, for the vendor it reduces the price they can pay for the next house.

It is change for changes sake, if you want to help first time buyers give them a direct tax concession.

Labour are no longer even trying to hide what they are up to! If you have money, we will take it. If you own a house a bit bigger than you need, we will tax you. You will be educated only to the level we allow, as we wish to control you. Harder to control the educated! And so it goes on!!!!! Roll on the next few years!!!

It was a Labour government who aimed to get 50% of the population into higher education, and people complained about that, as their 'elitism' was threatened when degrees became more usual. They really can't win . I'm not aware that there is a Labour-induced cap on the level of education, though. I'd having a bit of a holiday from rolling news though, so maybe I've missed it?

I have long complained about the way those in power (and their supporters) claim to know what other people 'need'. It's such a mean-spirited outlook. Don't give bus passes to people who don't 'need' them. They have a small occupational pension so are a bit better off now than they would have been if they hadn't been worse off when paying in. Don't let people with gel nails use food banks, as the fact that they have spent a bit of money on their appearance means they can't be in 'need' of assistance from those who volunteer their time and donate the food. It goes on and on.

AFAIK (news avoidance notwithstanding) the proposed sales tax on houses is not predicated on 'need' though. It is about the value of the house, not whether it has 'too many' bedrooms (like the Tory bedroom tax) or is 'too large' for a small household. It would apply to a single person or a large family in a house selling for over £500k, and would not apply to a single person in a ten bed house if it sells for less.

love0c

Labour are no longer even trying to hide what they are up to! If you have money, we will take it. If you own a house a bit bigger than you need, we will tax you. You will be educated only to the level we allow, as we wish to control you. Harder to control the educated! And so it goes on!!!!! Roll on the next few years!!!

Those that have money (wealth) can afford to pay more tax, those that do not can not afford to pay more tax.

Yes governments controls the population how did you think government worked, those that are most useful earn more, those that don’t contribute survive on the basics. Aiming for 50% graduates was never achievable because there are not enough jobs at that level. It’s all about chiefs and indians not everyone can or indeed wants to be a decision maker, with AI making the decisions that’s going to get worse.

Doodledog it requires a lot of thinking about, but one problem that could occur is that homeowners thinking of downsizing might decide to stay put if their property's value is above a £500,000 limit. That could cause different problems as there would be a lack of available properties for those wishing to upsize.

I agree, Allira. I definitely think that it could create two almost separate markets - below £500k and well above £500k, and that these markets would be very different in different parts of the country, where half a million buys very different houses. I don't know whether that's the way to balance the current differentials, but I do think the differentials are bad for the country as a whole and should be tackled somehow. Arbitrary figures are rarely 'fair' though, and I hope there would be some way of protecting those who are already stretched to allow them to move if they need to.

At least you don't pay stamp duty when inheriting a house, only when you buy one.
I wonder how long that will last? Shh!

Under the new proposals that would change though, unless the heirs stayed in the inherited house.

Any body got any experience of buying a house where the environmental search failed because of contaminated land?

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

There's a lot of new builds in my area, too, and some are taking longer than the developers expected to sell ( spoiler alert, they're over priced) .
I am amused to see that these builds are invariably described as " stunning/ amazing/ luxurious etc", because a more truthful account would be " small houses of average quality on tiny plots".
Wasn't there an estate agent many years ago - Roy ? - who was famous for being extremely frank about the properties he sold?

It does seem baffling, doesn’t it? A lot of these big estates are marketed to commuters with decent salaries, investors (including overseas buyers), and people moving out of cities for more space. But with interest rates, mortgage criteria, and the general cost of living, it feels like developers are building for a market that’s shrinking rather than growing. Meanwhile the demand for genuinely affordable or social housing is huge, yet those are the homes not being built in enough numbers. It may explain why so many new builds sit empty or sales are slow.

Josie55

Any body got any experience of buying a house where the environmental search failed because of contaminated land?

No.

Not that I know as much as some may on that subject.
Start another thread about it?
Not everyone reads every thread on here[I certainly dont].

Christian1x

It does seem baffling, doesn’t it? A lot of these big estates are marketed to commuters with decent salaries, investors (including overseas buyers), and people moving out of cities for more space. But with interest rates, mortgage criteria, and the general cost of living, it feels like developers are building for a market that’s shrinking rather than growing. Meanwhile the demand for genuinely affordable or social housing is huge, yet those are the homes not being built in enough numbers. It may explain why so many new builds sit empty or sales are slow.

Larger houses may well be slower selling but developers are only going to build if they can sell them at a profit. It all depends on the area in up market villages larger houses sell well so that’s where developers build if they can get planning.
Less popular estates build more 3 bed or smaller to a lower specification, developers who build houses that don’t sell go out of business very quickly.

Josie55

Any body got any experience of buying a house where the environmental search failed because of contaminated land?

Not directly. It would depend what the problem was, it would be up to the seller to rectify the problem, it may be minor that can be sorted quickly, or a major issue that makes the house worthless.
Whatever the issue you are not likely to get a mortgage until it’s rectified.

I'n guessing that the mark-up on one large house is significantly higher than that on two small ones? The new houses near me tend to have lots of rooms, so sound good on paper. 5 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms sounds like a large house, but when you see the number of square feet that is far from the case, and often the older 'jerry built' semis have more space around them than the detached ones on peripheral estates.

I remember the EE who was 'frank' about the properties he was selling . Roy Brooks. I used to love reading his descriptions:
DARKEST PIMLICO. A large Victorian family house, entrance flanked by pillars, pathetically waits for purchaser. The bath shrouded by thickening dust. Torn up by its roots the missing geyser leaves a gaping hole…. Groping in the basement (3 rooms), our intrepid representative stumbled against an ancient brick copper: presumably the kitchen. Long 80 yrs. lse. G.R. £60 p.a. A gift at £6,990. If you are too late to secure this gem we have a twin (a much lighter house, equally repulsive) next door in Sutherland Street coming on the market this week at the same price.

FASHIONABLE CHELSEA. Untouched by the swinging world of fashion, an early Vic lower-middle class family dwelling, which has sunk to a working class tenement (2 lousy kits & 3 sinks). The decaying décor lit by, “high speed gas.” 6 main rms & revolting appurtenances which could be turned into a bathrm. & kit….A few doors away, houses sell for over £18,000 & tarted up twin houses to make this one almost double the modest £8,500 asked for this dump. Lse 51yrs.

😂