The Big Con
- Thread starter Freddie
- Start date
Sponsored Links
a lot of empty homes are council owned and are simply unihabitable, because theyve been left like that by previous tennats and he counsil wont spend the money repairing them. In certain estates near me they have a large number of houses that are empty and have been for a while, but people who they are offered to refuse to move into the area and i cant say i blame them. I think the government need s to get its own house(s) in order before it starts going around and poking its nose in other peoples
Thermo said:
It doesn't, Thermo - if one is sufficiently closed-minded then it's easy to sustain the self-delusion that some of the population can somehow profit at the misfortunes of others, and it pleases such idiots to prey upon the such misfortune to the extent of childish glee and righteous triumph. Never mind that the people who lose out may be our neighbours, friends, relatives, friends of relatives etc..
Sponsored Links
I am currently looking to start a bit of 'property development' if I can use such a grand term.
I have teamed up with an interior designer (she plans and manages building and structural work as well as soft furnishings etc), and we are planning to buy a house at auction.
We have just been to look at one which will probably go for about £55k at the next auction. It's a 3-bedroom house in a reasonable area in north sheffield. The inside is, as my partner phrased it, 'mingin'. Structurally it's pretty good but it needs new windows and some rendering. The rest is really some heavy-duty decorating and gardening as well as a new kitchen & bathroom.
No-one would buy this house to move into as it is so awful inside you couldn't live in it (and wouldn't even want to walk in without gloves on!).
By buying it, doing it up and re-selling at the market price someone is providing a decent house as well as making a profit (hopefully).
There is obviously an element of risk involved and so you must weigh up the pros and cons before deciding whether the potential profit makes it worth having a go.
Makes sense to me.
I have teamed up with an interior designer (she plans and manages building and structural work as well as soft furnishings etc), and we are planning to buy a house at auction.
We have just been to look at one which will probably go for about £55k at the next auction. It's a 3-bedroom house in a reasonable area in north sheffield. The inside is, as my partner phrased it, 'mingin'. Structurally it's pretty good but it needs new windows and some rendering. The rest is really some heavy-duty decorating and gardening as well as a new kitchen & bathroom.
No-one would buy this house to move into as it is so awful inside you couldn't live in it (and wouldn't even want to walk in without gloves on!).
By buying it, doing it up and re-selling at the market price someone is providing a decent house as well as making a profit (hopefully).
There is obviously an element of risk involved and so you must weigh up the pros and cons before deciding whether the potential profit makes it worth having a go.
Makes sense to me.
Softus said:
Because Mr. Softus, the original intent of this topic was, if I'm not mistaken, to do with 700,000 empty properties in this country which have been unoccupied for years. Some is local authority generated, some is government generated, and the rest is "people taking advantage of an investment opportunity". In other words making it ****ing difficult for people to find a house to live in in the first place, so why don't you get off your holier-than-thou ****ing horse and taking your one sided let's-bitch-at-an individual-I've-selected-while-conveniently-ignoring-similar-posts-from-others view. If people buy houses to keep them empty, while others are finding extreme difficulty in finding somewhere to live, then they get all they deserve when the market crashes.
If you're so bothered about all my friends, neighbours and family try having a go at these bloddy investors not me you tosser.
anyone who buys a house to keep it empty is a brick short of a hod load and i cant see many investors doing that to be honest. i dont know of many either (since my brother has a large residential and commercial property business in a large city i have some basis to go on) most investors will either do up a property and sell it on or rent it out, even if only in the short term. otherwise they are losing money and making no return on their investment.
oilman said:
Yes I think I see your point. Nevertheless, all of the available evidence would seem to indicate that I am indeed holier than thou, although I can't speak for my horse.
To answer your second question, albeit a non-sequitor because I'm not really bothered at all about you or your nearest and dearest, the reason I don't "have a go" at investors is because I believe the situation to more complex than it seems at first glance. So, personally, I can't reasonably lump all property investors into one handy category and aim my prejudice at them, no matter how little thought I try to put into my observations.
Moving on, or, in fact, returning to the point, the question posed by Thermo was as follows:
Perhaps when you've had a cup of tea and calmed down a bit you'd like to answer that one. Pardon me if I just nip out for a pint while you're doing that.
One more tiny question for you - if the majority of available houses are snapped up by investors, which is what I think you're implying (and I'm sure that someone with such lucid, articulate and coherent arguments as yourself has all the figures to back this up), then why do those houses stay unoccupied - surely they would available for rent?
Sponsored Links
