Author Topic: Sad: Rightmove shows increasing number of B&Bs, Bunkhouses etc up for sale  (Read 3713 times)

Offline Cantclimbtom

  • addict
  • **
  • Posts: 156
Looking at Rightmove, it's sad to see an increasing number of properties clearly B&Bs and in 1 case a bunkhouse hostel up for sale. I am assuming that many of these these are coming on the market as the owners just can't make ends meet.

Picking Betws y Coed as an example of extreme touristy area to act as a barometer, looks like you can pickup an 8 bed B&B for £550,000 or a 6 bed bunkhouse for £495,000, knockdown prices :( 

If I win 14M on Euromillions tomorrow I think I'll by one, might even pay the current owners to stay and run it for me. If these are businesses that can't make ends meet any more, it's a sad thing for the people's lives and livelihoods
Expert in incompetent tomfoolery

Offline PeteHall

  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1772
  • ChCC, WCC, SWCC, WCDG
Either that, or property prices are so high right now, it's a good time to sell up. There's bound to be a crash soon, so buy back again in a couple of years for half the price  :thumbsup:

Offline Down and beyond

  • menacing presence
  • **
  • Posts: 226
Price houses are stupid around Northamptonshire their is no hope for the younger generation , you either rent or wait for your relatives to sadly pass away and take over their house ,  out of all of my friends around my age no one can afford a mortgage so they all rent or on council ! Is a terrible circle we are in

Offline Speleofish

  • stalker
  • ***
  • Posts: 265
I don't know about Betwys y Coed, but most of our local B&Bs seem to be fully booked until November, so those people who haven't been bankrupted completely should be due for a reasonable few months, especially as most of us won't be going overseas this summer.

There's huge interest locally in any house that fits the 'escape to the country' model as long as it has a decent internet connection. Four have sold in our (very small) village in the last month, all within days of going on the market (this is about two years worth of houses in normal circumstances).

The problem is, if you sell up, where do you move to? There's almost nowhere to buy and houses to rent in the country are much scarcer than those in cities. There are new developments on the outskirts of all our local towns but demand is still pretty high and, as Down and Beyond says, house prices are getting a little stupid, even here in Shropshire.

Offline mikem

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4670
  • Mendip Caving Group
There will also be a backlog of accommodation properties that wanted to sell last year, but didn't get the chance, coming on to the market now.

Offline Down and beyond

  • menacing presence
  • **
  • Posts: 226
2 x 4 bed houses for sale in the village I live in 795k each  ! That ent good for first time buyers !

Offline PeteHall

  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1772
  • ChCC, WCC, SWCC, WCDG
2 x 4 bed houses for sale in the village I live in 795k each  ! That ent good for first time buyers !

Ouch!

Bit more reasonable around here (South Glos), but still pretty mad. We'd been planning to move since before all this Covid-city-fleeing/ stamp-duty-holiday madness kicked off, but by the time we got sorted out and on the market it was all nuts. Sold our house no bother for 50% more than we paid 7 years ago (madness, it's the same house and wages sure as hell haven't gone up 50%!), but every house we offered on (even way over asking price) was outbid by a cash buyer from London and we don't even live in a posh village! The last place we tried for went for more than £100k over the asking price and it was steep to start with. We've given up now; just working out how we can shuffle the kids into the space we have a bit better instead...

Meanwhile, a beach hut in Dorset now costs more than the average UK house price!

Offline Speleofish

  • stalker
  • ***
  • Posts: 265
The Yurt maker in the next village tells me they're perfect, all-year-round, cheap accommodation.
But he chooses to live in a house....

Offline ttxela2

  • menacing presence
  • **
  • Posts: 192
I bought my first house back in '92 for £36,500 my salary at the time was in the region of £10k/year so about 3.5 times my salary. The same house now would cost about £130k and salary's for similar jobs to what I was doing at the time are about £22k so now about 6 times the salary.

I remember at the time people saying house prices couldn't go up much further or no-one could afford them. I was 20 when I bought mine but typically people have accomodated the rise in prices by buying much later and now people don't seem to be buying houses until their 30's maybe even 40's.

It's all madness surely?  :-\ :shrug:


Offline paul

  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4606
  • Orpheus CC, NPC
    • Orpheus Caving Club
I would say Supply and Demand rather than Madness...
I'm not a complete idiot: some parts are missing!

Offline maxb727

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 371
2 x 4 bed houses for sale in the village I live in 795k each  ! That ent good for first time buyers !

Ouch!

Bit more reasonable around here (South Glos), but still pretty mad. We'd been planning to move since before all this Covid-city-fleeing/ stamp-duty-holiday madness kicked off, but by the time we got sorted out and on the market it was all nuts. Sold our house no bother for 50% more than we paid 7 years ago (madness, it's the same house and wages sure as hell haven't gone up 50%!), but every house we offered on (even way over asking price) was outbid by a cash buyer from London and we don't even live in a posh village! The last place we tried for went for more than £100k over the asking price and it was steep to start with. We've given up now; just working out how we can shuffle the kids into the space we have a bit better instead...

Meanwhile, a beach hut in Dorset now costs more than the average UK house price!
We wanted to move and found that we weren’t even allowed to look at houses until we had a buyer.

We ended up working out we could keep the house as an investment and rent it out. Making us in the position to buy.

We’ve had an offer accepted on a house at slightly more than asking price but still the right value IMHO. We missed out on others because of the price being super inflated.

It seems to have the best chance of buying currently you need to be chain free. Many friends are selling and moving into rented to then buy. But we didn’t want the hassle

Offline 2xw

  • forum star
  • ****
  • Posts: 745
  • YUCPC, SUSS
I bought my first house back in '92 for £36,500 my salary at the time was in the region of £10k/year so about 3.5 times my salary. The same house now would cost about £130k and salary's for similar jobs to what I was doing at the time are about £22k so now about 6 times the salary.

I remember at the time people saying house prices couldn't go up much further or no-one could afford them. I was 20 when I bought mine but typically people have accomodated the rise in prices by buying much later and now people don't seem to be buying houses until their 30's maybe even 40's.

It's all madness surely?  :-\ :shrug:

It'll work out eventually, none of us are having kids

Offline PeteHall

  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1772
  • ChCC, WCC, SWCC, WCDG
I would say Supply and Demand rather than Madness...

It seems to have the best chance of buying currently you need to be chain free. 

These are very closely linked. There are apparently a lot more buyers than sellers, as people buying but not selling to keep themselves chain free. This increases the pressure on supply, increasing the benefit of being chain free and therefore increasing the number of people trying to buy without selling. And around the vicious circle it goes again...  :wall:

It feels like the toilet roll shortage all over again, but a lot more expensive! :o
« Last Edit: April 22, 2021, 02:04:53 pm by PeteHall »

Offline mikem

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4670
  • Mendip Caving Group
Up until the 1960s most people expected to live with their parents until they could afford their own place (or qualify for council housing).

Offline pwhole

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2821
  • TSG, DCA, PDMHS
    • Phil Wolstenholme website
Of course there's a lot of office buildings doing nothing now that may as well be converted into flats, especially in the City of London. But will they bite the bullet and do it, or try to bribe their business customers back? The ones who all now work at home quite happily on their laptop. There's nowhere near enough houses to go round (or rather there's not enough of the houses people want to buy) and if folks don't want to live near a big city then some green space has to go on new housing. But the people who already live in thise places don't want any more. 'Stop the proposed housing development' is a popular sign in several rural villages I've driven through on jobs.

I worked on a village church in Oxfordshire a while ago and we saw two people in the entire day - the warden who let us in and a lady who went past on a horse at lunchtime. Nobody else for miles, nor in the twenty miles we drove back to the motorway, but plenty of signs protesting about the proposed housing development - and promoting the local tory. Cameron's 'local' is down the road. Ugh. The fields had no crops and no livestock - just picture-postcard landscape, seemingly preserved for the view.

The flip side of this of course is that many of these proposed housing developments churn out the type of citizens who can put off new settlers. I just came back from Eckington and Mosborough, which is 'South Sheffield rustic' - country estate land, with ancient collieries, farms and and woods, but with massive housing estates too, which took all the people who were kicked out of the concrete city hell that was built in the early 1960s and demolished in the late 1980s. They're rough and crude, but they live in the country, and in many ways have restored the 19th Century citizenry model of a semi-rustic workforce - except there's nowhere for them to work now, as the collieries and ironworks aren't there any more. It's a lovely place to live, but it's not posh by any stretch.

Offline Speleofish

  • stalker
  • ***
  • Posts: 265
The problem with converting offices is that you end up with more city flats (of which there are already huge numbers, usually rental properties) many of which come with cladding issues.

I suspect most people want to live in something that looks like a house. Unless you can rehabilitate brown field spaces, you're going to have to sacrifice land on the outskirts of towns and cities. Or you could build entirely new 'communities' in the middle of nowhere. But, if you're going to do that, you have to ensure you put in the infrastructure that allows a community to develop, unlike many of the places built in in the 60s and 70s with many houses, an occasional shop, but nothing that gives a place a centre or identity.

Offline pwhole

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2821
  • TSG, DCA, PDMHS
    • Phil Wolstenholme website
That's the real problem here I guess - most of the places we all live in currently have been here for centuries already, in some form or another, and it was more a case of expanding or overlaying what already existed, slowly and carefully, working in and around (or replacing) previous infrastructure, and creating new folklore to go along with it, which would settle the social structures alongside. Creating a new town from scratch can cause all sort of problems because that folklore is missing - I guess the US is a classic example of 'functional town creation', where the place is essentially built to fill a need, in the most 'convenient' spot (avoiding interesting geology), creating a bland, soul-less environment. The best town in the US are the oldest, usually. And embracing interesting geology, like in San Francisco.

Offline 2xw

  • forum star
  • ****
  • Posts: 745
  • YUCPC, SUSS
Up until the 1960s most people expected to live with their parents until they could afford their own place (or qualify for council housing).

Into their 30s? My nan and grandad lived with their parents when they got married at 19, and after first child, but they got a council house in early 20s, and my other side was well off so not sure what age people expected to move out? Of course, on average they also expected to inherit a decade earlier...

Offline Ed

  • stalker
  • ***
  • Posts: 263


 Of course, on average they also expected to inherit a decade earlier...

and pass on earlier

Offline Cantclimbtom

  • addict
  • **
  • Posts: 156
Given "fiscal creep"  (a certain amount money not worth the same as it used to be) the inheritance/gift laws/amounts that were originally intended to redistribute wealth locked up in super rich landed-estates, now apply to inheritance of many ordinary people's estates. Average house price in London is now £514K and inheritance tax threshold at £325K. The idea that your house can simply pass to your kids may not work out that way.

Expert in incompetent tomfoolery

Offline JoshW

  • forum star
  • ****
  • Posts: 740
  • YSS, WSCC, BCA Youth & Development, BCA Group Rep
Up until the 1960s most people expected to live with their parents until they could afford their own place (or qualify for council housing).

Into their 30s? My nan and grandad lived with their parents when they got married at 19, and after first child, but they got a council house in early 20s, and my other side was well off so not sure what age people expected to move out? Of course, on average they also expected to inherit a decade earlier...

Only takes a quick look to see that houses are now 'double' the price they were in the 60s compared to the average wage at the time.

Lack of social housing is an absolute travesty and contributes towards this.

Owning a house is an absolute pipe dream as a single person nowadays for most people my age.

Given "fiscal creep"  (a certain amount money not worth the same as it used to be) the inheritance/gift laws/amounts that were originally intended to redistribute wealth locked up in super rich landed-estates, now apply to inheritance of many ordinary people's estates. Average house price in London is now £514K and inheritance tax threshold at £325K. The idea that your house can simply pass to your kids may not work out that way.

Good. Inheritance tax should be higher, and loopholes of trusts should be closed asap (I'd imagine most of the super rich landed estates manage to avoid any inheritance by using these).

If the only thing inherited was the house in London the inheritance tax charge would be £75,600. £75k for an average house in London sounds alright to me. And this is if the only thing inherited is the house, other things inherited could easily offset this amount (not to mention any life assurance and pension sums where the lifetime allowance is just over a cool million before being taxed at all - and that's in a registered trust, lots moving to non-registered where it falls outside of the lifetime allowance and is for all intents and purposes not taxable).
All views are my own and not that of the BCA or any clubs for which I'm a member of.

Offline sinker

  • menacing presence
  • **
  • Posts: 164
  • O-Level woodwork BlockbusterVideo Gold Card
Either that, or property prices are so high right now, it's a good time to sell up. There's bound to be a crash soon, so buy back again in a couple of years for half the price  :thumbsup:

You're  right. Add to that the fact that there are a LOT of people from Cheshire / L'pool / M'cr who could afford to buy a B&B in Betws y Coed, for example, due to the stunning location, and use it as a second home / holiday home / commute 3 days a week / holiday home for friends and extended family. That type of thing.

No wonder that a person, third generation, born and bred in Betws or similar can't even afford a terraced house in their home town.

I'm Welsh and extremely proud of it but I know our faults as a country and greed is one of them; we have brought this upon ourselves by being greedy....inherit a house from you parents or grandparents, don't need it, sell it to the highest bidder. Usually from away or as a second home. Raise the bar. Prices spiral up out of control. We cannot see beyond the end of our noses; national trait.

We also love to run each other down as well. If there was a nuclear war and there was only three Welshmen left alive you would still find two of them in a corner talking about the other one  :lol:


Ah, well, now, you see...erm...

Offline Stuart France

  • stalker
  • ***
  • Posts: 281
A little history goes a long way toward understanding.  In my lifetime, UK interest rates peaked at 17% in 1979 at the transition from Old Labour to Mrs Thatcher as the incoming government extinguished the 1970s inflation rate they inherited -- which was 18% having peaked at 24% in 1975 and averaging 18% from 1973-80.

Interest rates then settled around 10% for the following decade but with wild swings up to 4% either way until the ERM Sterling Crisis of 1992.  During this period inflation was at first tamed at 5% (give or take 2%) but rose to almost 10% by 1990.  Having given up on pegging the Pound to the assumed eventual Euro, interest rates were allowed to fall to 6% (give or take 2%) until the Banking Crash of 2008 when they fell to 0.5% and have since effectively fallen to zero.  During the decade to 2019 annual CPI inflation averaged 3%.

As to house prices, in broad terms, a house now costing £250,000 would have cost £100,000 in today's money (taking account of inflation) in 1975. Salaries, of course, in real terms have not gone up by 2.5 times in the same period.  So what is going on?

The answer is Parkinson's Law, as applied to money.  The original law states that "Work Expands to Fill the Time Available for its Completion".  The money version of this Law is therefore "House Prices Rise to Match the Capacity to Borrow".  In other words there is an inverse relationship between house price inflation and interest rates where average earnings in real terms remain level.

Successive governments have become more and more addicted to high levels of borrowing so as to fund otherwise unaffordable measures to create an impression of increases in living standards so as to improve their re-election prospects.  The debt is now so large that it cannot be repaid on the timescale of whole working lives or generations.

Enter New Monetary Theory (the magic money tree) where it is conveniently claimed that successive governments can print unlimited new money in their own currency with absolutely no consequences.

Those more mathematically literate than governments will realise that as interest rates head for zero then the cost of borrowing money also becomes zero.  Therefore the value of money ultimately becomes zero because it can be created in infinite amounts at no cost and with no consequences.  Except there will be consequences eventually.

The value of fiat money is represented by assets (stocks and shares, businesses, housing stock, savings, infrastructure etc) and the future capacity to create new assets (via work and the economy).

When the time bell is called, bonds will crash first, and then the stock market, and no amount of money printing at zero interest rates will stop it because the market by then will have understood that the new money is as worthless as the old.

So yes, buy a house if you can and inherit one if you can't.  Even if the next financial crisis is a deflationary one as things unwind, the value of your house cannot drop to nothing, unlike your money.

Offline PeteHall

  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1772
  • ChCC, WCC, SWCC, WCDG
Given "fiscal creep"  (a certain amount money not worth the same as it used to be) the inheritance/gift laws/amounts that were originally intended to redistribute wealth locked up in super rich landed-estates, now apply to inheritance of many ordinary people's estates. Average house price in London is now £514K and inheritance tax threshold at £325K. The idea that your house can simply pass to your kids may not work out that way.

Good. Inheritance tax should be higher, and loopholes of trusts should be closed asap (I'd imagine most of the super rich landed estates manage to avoid any inheritance by using these).

If the only thing inherited was the house in London the inheritance tax charge would be £75,600. £75k for an average house in London sounds alright to me. And this is if the only thing inherited is the house, other things inherited could easily offset this amount (not to mention any life assurance and pension sums where the lifetime allowance is just over a cool million before being taxed at all - and that's in a registered trust, lots moving to non-registered where it falls outside of the lifetime allowance and is for all intents and purposes not taxable).

The tax free allowance for inheritance is £325k per person, so in a typical family scenario of a married couple leaving a home to their kids, the threshold is £650k. This applies even if one party has died many years before the other. There is some caveat here to do with a main residence passing to direct descendants, but for most people who's main wealth is in their home and they leave it to their kids, the tax break applies, regardless of whether the kids keep of sell the house.

In the meantime, the super-rich will always have the ways and means to avoid or evade any form of taxation.

Offline Stuart France

  • stalker
  • ***
  • Posts: 281
I thought the way the rich folk passed on their really valuable property was to give it away to the next generation when they are heading for 70 years of age.  If they live another 7 years (in some nice rented property somewhere) then the inheritance tax on the property disposal is zero.

 

Main Menu

Forum Home Help Search
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal