Yorkshire home loses 65% of its value

[Sheffy2008 10]

This one sold for 99k in 2005

http://www.houseprices.co.uk/e.php?q=12+flat+4+stead+street+shipley&n=10

 

and September 2008 for 35k it sold for

http://www.eigroup.co.uk/onlineauctions/lotpub.asp?a=10601&l=511781

 

 

Thats a 65% loss.

 

 

This property crash, as we know, has arrived in every UK city, including Sheffield, but how can Sheffield residents minimise the effects and maintain a decent standard of life?

 

 

 

 

 

 

.......

[willman 10]

Links don't work BTW.

[Tricky 10]

....

 

and September 2008 for 35k it sold for...

 

 

May the force be with you, master Yoda.

 

 

You need some help with your links after all....

[Sheffy2008 10]

May the force be with you, master Yoda.

 

 

You need some help with your links after all....

 

links fixed....Phyllis....

 

 

Phyllis....

Come out, come out whever you are......

 

 

 

 

 

..........

[Tomataheeed 10]

Are they the same flat ? - first link says flat 4, second link just says first floor flat.

[Sheffy2008 10]

Are they the same flat ? - first link says flat 4, second link just says first floor flat.

 

Yes, read the top of the page....

[medusa 16]

These sort of property falls have happened repeatedly in the past with different areas. Within my family there was a house that was bought for £26k and sold 9 years later for £12k (not in Sheffield, but recently and in West Yorkshire).

 

This was caused by a notional change in the standing of the area. The same could be applicable in the case that you have stated and somewhere half a mile away could be static or rising in value.

[willman 10]

The first time it was sold i assume privately. The second was an auction . So we can assume that the property is a repo or trade in at some point. Auction prices are not a true reflection of private prices in most cases. The "loss" could have been made by Barratt homes etc as a trade in on ahouse.

[Sheffy2008 10]

The first time it was sold i assume privately. The second was an auction . So we can assume that the property is a repo or trade in at some point. Auction prices are not a true reflection of private prices in most cases. The "loss" could have been made by Barratt homes etc as a trade in on ahouse.

 

That's alot of assumptions to explain away a 65% drop.

 

I expect this is a repo, but none of us know for sure.

 

If more come, we'll know it was real. Agreed?

[Phylis 10]

Well no not really. There is no evidence to suspect this is widespread. Whos not to say that the property is in an area due for demolition. Take a look at the Owler bar area of Sheffield. A lot of property in the area is due for demolition so has no real value to anyone other than the council. These properties are bought and sold by investors hoping to make some money via compulsary purchase orders. They have no value to anyone other than a cash buyer so yes they do lose value on the surface.

[willman 10]

I made one qualified assessment not really an assumption - the AUCTION states vendor:mortagee.

"By order of the Mortgagee is another term used to denote a property that has been repossessed."

from the mortgage society site.

[Sheffy2008 10]

Well no not really. There is no evidence to suspect this is widespread. Whos not to say that the property is in an area due for demolition. Take a look at the Owler bar area of Sheffield. A lot of property in the area is due for demolition so has no real value to anyone other than the council. These properties are bought and sold by investors hoping to make some money via compulsary purchase orders. They have no value to anyone other than a cash buyer so yes they do lose value on the surface.

 

As Willman states, it's a repo......not a demolition.....so there goes your theory.

 

65%...phew! That was a clanger....