Re: WRIGHT'S FOLLY - Dr. Martin Roberts

by aiyoyo 30.09.13 7:56

Châtelaine wrote:Nr. 1 was valued GBP 319,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 482,000
Nr. 2 was valued GBP 299,950 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 3 was valued GBP 244,950 in 2002, sold for GBP 325,000, then for GBP 470,000
Nr. 4 was valued GBP 291,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 335,000, then for GBP 410,000
Nr. 5 was valued GBP 60,000in 2002, sold for GBP 459,950
Nr. 6 was valued GBP 309,500 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 7 was valued GBP 325,250 in 2002, not sold so far.

All of these data seem in line [with good profit in sales - then]. Only Nr. 5 is falling out of line ...

Quite a few untaken properties - it seems one wants that kind of neighbours.
I am left wondering whether their immediate next two properties no. 6&7 were vacant because of them, or not sold since 2002? More than a decade is hell of a long time for them to be on the market.
Immediate few on the other side shows change of hands, again would it be for same reason ie moved out because of undesirable type of neighbours.

Is it such a bad estate one wonders or other reason?

by lj 30.09.13 14:34

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Land Registry confirms it too.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I wonder if it could have been just the site before the house was built.

That was my thought too. There is no way the tax office would let anyone get away with such a profit.

by Woofer 30.09.13 14:37

aiyoyo wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Nr. 1 was valued GBP 319,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 482,000
Nr. 2 was valued GBP 299,950 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 3 was valued GBP 244,950 in 2002, sold for GBP 325,000, then for GBP 470,000
Nr. 4 was valued GBP 291,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 335,000, then for GBP 410,000
Nr. 5 was valued GBP 60,000in 2002, sold for GBP 459,950
Nr. 6 was valued GBP 309,500 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 7 was valued GBP 325,250 in 2002, not sold so far.

All of these data seem in line [with good profit in sales - then]. Only Nr. 5 is falling out of line ...
Quite a few untaken properties - it seems one wants that kind of neighbours.
I am left wondering whether their immediate next two properties no. 6&7 were vacant because of them, or not sold since 2002? More than a decade is hell of a long time for them to be on the market.
Immediate few on the other side shows change of hands, again would it be for same reason ie moved out because of undesirable type of neighbours.

Is it such a bad estate one wonders or other reason?

There are people in those houses. Probably bought them as soon as they were built in 2002 and have not moved since.

by gbwales 30.09.13 15:07

aiyoyo wrote:
Is it such a bad estate one wonders or other reason?

You'd certainly have some pretty undesirable neighbours big grin

by ultimaThule 30.09.13 15:35

Woofer wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Nr. 1 was valued GBP 319,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 482,000
Nr. 2 was valued GBP 299,950 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 3 was valued GBP 244,950 in 2002, sold for GBP 325,000, then for GBP 470,000
Nr. 4 was valued GBP 291,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 335,000, then for GBP 410,000
Nr. 5 was valued GBP 60,000in 2002, sold for GBP 459,950
Nr. 6 was valued GBP 309,500 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 7 was valued GBP 325,250 in 2002, not sold so far.

All of these data seem in line [with good profit in sales - then]. Only Nr. 5 is falling out of line ...
Quite a few untaken properties - it seems one wants that kind of neighbours.
I am left wondering whether their immediate next two properties no. 6&7 were vacant because of them, or not sold since 2002? More than a decade is hell of a long time for them to be on the market.
Immediate few on the other side shows change of hands, again would it be for same reason ie moved out because of undesirable type of neighbours.

Is it such a bad estate one wonders or other reason?
There are people in those houses. Probably bought them as soon as they were built in 2002 and have not moved since.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Detached
£482,000
25 Jun 08
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Detached
£400,000
28 Jul 06

Detached
£390,000
01 Oct 04
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Detached
£319,500
21 Jun 02

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Detached
£299,950
30 Jul 02

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Detached
£244,950
25 Jun 02
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Detached
£325,000
27 Feb 04
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Detached
£470,000
18 Jan 08
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Detached
£410,000
27 Oct 06
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Detached
£380,000
19 Feb 10
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Detached
£291,500
30 Sep 02
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Detached
£335,000
26 Mar 04
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Detached
£60,000
28 Mar 02
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Detached
£459,950
20 Jan 06
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Detached
£309,500
31 May 02
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Detached
£325,250
25 Jul 02

Other than half of the neighbours having elected to move since the Mcanns' rise to ~~notoriety~~ fame, I see nothing odd at all in the above Land Registry records.

by Guest 30.09.13 15:38

Châtelaine wrote:Nr. 1 was valued GBP 319,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 482,000
Nr. 2 was valued GBP 299,950 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 3 was valued GBP 244,950 in 2002, sold for GBP 325,000, then for GBP 470,000
Nr. 4 was valued GBP 291,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 335,000, then for GBP 410,000
Nr. 5 was valued GBP 60,000in 2002, sold for GBP 459,950
Nr. 6 was valued GBP 309,500 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 7 was valued GBP 325,250 in 2002, not sold so far.

All of these data seem in line [with good profit in sales - then]. Only Nr. 5 is falling out of line ...

If the purchaser of no. 5 applied for a mortgage while the property was just a plot of land, the surveyor would have given the building society or bank a current value i.e. the value of the land and an estimated value for the completed house.

The other houses look like they had already been built when they were sold.

There's nothing unusual about this. It's just a coincidence.

by Monty Heck 30.09.13 15:39

ultimaThule wrote:Returning to the theme of the folly of Wright's testimony which would appear to be a prime example of the wisdom of not opening mouth until brain is in gear:

"ID - What consequence did this have on the cCanns family life and in particular that relating to the twins?
MW Around the time of the negative e-mails and threats, which was when they tried to launch the campaign, we went away for the second anniversary with Kate and Gerry to a remote house in the countryside. Anniversaries and Christmases were never very good. But in 2009 it was horrible. When they arrived at the cottage, they heard through friends they had in Praia da Luz that the 10,000 posters they had distributed and put up in the Algarve had been ripped and torn. Their friends had called them on the phone to say it was awful and that there were some people who were saying that the child was dead.

The fact that people in Praia da Luz believed the conclusions of the book was terrible for them because they were already depressed"

The fact of the matter is that, long before the publication of Dr Amaral's book, the good people of Luz reached their own conclusions and Madeleine ~~propoganda~~ posters were being torn down and otherwise removed before the McCanns' were made arguidos in September 2007.

As for "they heard through friends they had in Praia da Luz that the 10,000 posters they had distributed and put up in the Algarve had been ripped and torn" would this be another batch of posters the McCanns arranged to be sent to a commercial distribution company in Portugal, not one of which they 'put up' on a wall/telegraph pole/lamp post/shop front or similar with their own ~~grubby mitts~~ fair hands?

By summer 2008 people in PDL seemed much more apathetic towards anything McCann related. The mood seemed to be that they had done whatever they possibly could and had given support even though many had misgivings about the McCs conduct from the start. People were saying they hoped or prayed M would be found alive but unfortunately the greater likelihood was that she was unfortunately dead. Attempting to "launch" a campaign in those circumstances, particularly without any events, personal appearances, appeals or calls to action direct from the parents/family was simply very short sighted and bound to fall flat. All charities who campaign find themselves up against sympathy burnout, therefore have to refresh their messages and renew approaches constantly, no matter how worthy the cause. But of course the fund is not a charity, run by people without the professionalism to evaluate the impact (or failure) of a campaign in anything approaching an unbiased way, and putting up posters, even 10,000, does not a campaign make.

Attempting to link this failure with the few people in PDL who would have read GAs book is simply ridiculous. The vast majority of their support in the village was the ex pat community in PDL. People who can only order a drink or ask for a menu or say good day are not likely to be reading any book in Portuguese therefore the claim that it was the belief of some vague, unamed "people in PDL" (and only there, nowhere else is mentioned) that M was dead, and that this belief came about due to the conclusions of GA's book is arrant nonsense. IMO.

by gbwales 30.09.13 15:47

They seem to have an set themselves an impossible task in any way *quantifying* the damage done to the search, given that the "search" itself is difficult to pin down or quantify anyway.

And I reckon they'd pretty much exhausted any Portuguese goodwill (let alone sympathy outside of Portugal) before they even left.

by Newintown 30.09.13 15:49

Woofer wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Nr. 1 was valued GBP 319,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 482,000
Nr. 2 was valued GBP 299,950 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 3 was valued GBP 244,950 in 2002, sold for GBP 325,000, then for GBP 470,000
Nr. 4 was valued GBP 291,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 335,000, then for GBP 410,000
Nr. 5 was valued GBP 60,000in 2002, sold for GBP 459,950
Nr. 6 was valued GBP 309,500 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 7 was valued GBP 325,250 in 2002, not sold so far.

All of these data seem in line [with good profit in sales - then]. Only Nr. 5 is falling out of line ...
Quite a few untaken properties - it seems one wants that kind of neighbours.
I am left wondering whether their immediate next two properties no. 6&7 were vacant because of them, or not sold since 2002? More than a decade is hell of a long time for them to be on the market.
Immediate few on the other side shows change of hands, again would it be for same reason ie moved out because of undesirable type of neighbours.

Is it such a bad estate one wonders or other reason?
There are people in those houses. Probably bought them as soon as they were built in 2002 and have not moved since.

Isn't one of the McCanns' friends/relatives a property developer, he built a huge house in Yorkshire I think it was, it's on another thread in this forum, but didn't getting proper planning permission for it. No doubt one of our intrepid researchers will know where to find the information.

Could he have developed the site that the McCanns house is on and they got a special deal? Just my opinion of course.

by Woofer 30.09.13 16:04

Newintown - you`re thinking of Ed Smethurst I believe. The story goes that he was Brian Kennedy (windows man) solicitor and came into their clique along with BK. Yes, he did build a house somewhere without the relevent permissions - ghastly looking place though IMO.

by Praiaaa 30.09.13 16:09

Nice location, convenient for 3 golf courses, but 400k?? bit steep for 2006.

by Woofer 30.09.13 16:12

Praiaaa wrote:Nice location, convenient for 3 golf courses, but 400k?? bit steep for 2006.

Actually £460,000 ... wonder how much mortgage they needed.

by aiyoyo 30.09.13 16:14

Woofer wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Nr. 1 was valued GBP 319,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 482,000
Nr. 2 was valued GBP 299,950 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 3 was valued GBP 244,950 in 2002, sold for GBP 325,000, then for GBP 470,000
Nr. 4 was valued GBP 291,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 335,000, then for GBP 410,000
Nr. 5 was valued GBP 60,000in 2002, sold for GBP 459,950
Nr. 6 was valued GBP 309,500 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 7 was valued GBP 325,250 in 2002, not sold so far.

All of these data seem in line [with good profit in sales - then]. Only Nr. 5 is falling out of line ...
Quite a few untaken properties - it seems no one wants that kind of neighbours.
I am left wondering whether their immediate next two properties no. 6&7 were vacant because of them, or not sold since 2002? More than a decade is hell of a long time for them to be on the market.
Immediate few on the other side shows change of hands, again would it be for same reason ie moved out because of undesirable type of neighbours.

Is it such a bad estate one wonders or other reason?
There are people in those houses. Probably bought them as soon as they were built in 2002 and have not moved since.

But they are marked as still unsold !

by Woofer 30.09.13 16:26

aiyoyo wrote:
Woofer wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Nr. 1 was valued GBP 319,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 482,000
Nr. 2 was valued GBP 299,950 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 3 was valued GBP 244,950 in 2002, sold for GBP 325,000, then for GBP 470,000
Nr. 4 was valued GBP 291,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 335,000, then for GBP 410,000
Nr. 5 was valued GBP 60,000in 2002, sold for GBP 459,950
Nr. 6 was valued GBP 309,500 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 7 was valued GBP 325,250 in 2002, not sold so far.

All of these data seem in line [with good profit in sales - then]. Only Nr. 5 is falling out of line ...
Quite a few untaken properties - it seems no one wants that kind of neighbours.
I am left wondering whether their immediate next two properties no. 6&7 were vacant because of them, or not sold since 2002? More than a decade is hell of a long time for them to be on the market.
Immediate few on the other side shows change of hands, again would it be for same reason ie moved out because of undesirable type of neighbours.

Is it such a bad estate one wonders or other reason?
There are people in those houses. Probably bought them as soon as they were built in 2002 and have not moved since.
But they are marked as still unsold !

I think that means not sold since they were bought in 2002. If you look at those houses, they seem to be lived in - all got curtains at the windows and cars in the drive.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 30.09.13 22:41

It indeed means that they haven't been sold since they were bought/acquired originally and are still occupied by the first owners.

The only one standing out is Nr. 5. I do appreciate, that it could mean the price of the lot was GBP 60,000 and the price of the house being constructed wasn't listed [ strange, though, as all lots must have been acquired and then houses must have been constructed, but, yeah...?] and four years later it sold at GBP 460,000. IMO that's still an outrageous price of a [IMO] rather middle-class/no taste [don't shoot me down!] house in a remote region ... And a hefty burden on the monthly income to pay the mortgage.

by ultimaThule 30.09.13 23:46

Châtelaine wrote:It indeed means that they haven't been sold since they were bought/acquired originally and are still occupied by the first owners.

The only one standing out is Nr. 5. I do appreciate, that it could mean the price of the lot was GBP 60,000 and the price of the house being constructed wasn't listed [ strange, though, as all lots must have been acquired and then houses must have been constructed, but, yeah...?] and four years later it sold at GBP 460,000. IMO that's still an outrageous price of a [IMO] rather middle-class/no taste [don't shoot me down!] house in a remote region ... And a hefty burden on the monthly income to pay the mortgage.

It seems that no.5 was built c1995 with the original owners selling the property for £60,000 in 2002 and the McCanns subsequently purchasing it for some £460,000 in 2006.

The low price ostensibly achieved in 2002 may have been due to the original owners selling/partially gifting the property to a son/daughter or some such arrangement. There is no law which stipulates property cannot be sold at less than market price although, of course, it is illegal to deflate a price in order to avoid payment of any relevant taxes/levies.

While some may consider Rothley to be a "remote region" :titter:it's my understanding that, in estate agent terms, this particular 'thriving' village is regarded as highly desirable and contains some of the most expensive property in the county.

From my reading of current Land Registry entries it would appear that since their purchase of no.5 three of the McCanns six immediate neighbours have sold up, the first having done so early in 2008.

I'm not sure where this trail is going but I would only find it remarkable if the McCanns had purchased the property for £60,000 in 2006 and were shown to have billed their ~~charity begins at home fund~~ limited company for mortgage payments of £2,000 per month during the period they sojourned in Portugal.

by loopzdaloop 01.10.13 0:48

Re house prices... wft

by Liz Eagles 01.10.13 1:03

I don't think the thread has been hijacked, it's just drifted off topic as happens from time to time. Chatelaine put up some info and Chatelaine would never hijack a thread.

Feel free to 'get back on topic', it only takes one post.

by aiyoyo 01.10.13 4:13

Woofer wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Woofer wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Nr. 1 was valued GBP 319,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 482,000
Nr. 2 was valued GBP 299,950 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 3 was valued GBP 244,950 in 2002, sold for GBP 325,000, then for GBP 470,000
Nr. 4 was valued GBP 291,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 335,000, then for GBP 410,000
Nr. 5 was valued GBP 60,000in 2002, sold for GBP 459,950
Nr. 6 was valued GBP 309,500 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 7 was valued GBP 325,250 in 2002, not sold so far.

All of these data seem in line [with good profit in sales - then]. Only Nr. 5 is falling out of line ...
Quite a few untaken properties - it seems no one wants that kind of neighbours.
I am left wondering whether their immediate next two properties no. 6&7 were vacant because of them, or not sold since 2002? More than a decade is hell of a long time for them to be on the market.
Immediate few on the other side shows change of hands, again would it be for same reason ie moved out because of undesirable type of neighbours.

Is it such a bad estate one wonders or other reason?
There are people in those houses. Probably bought them as soon as they were built in 2002 and have not moved since.
But they are marked as still unsold !
I think that means not sold since they were bought in 2002. If you look at those houses, they seem to be lived in - all got curtains at the windows and cars in the drive.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Two possibilities:
Either the record's not updated hence incorrect.
Or it is accurate that the properties are unsold since 2002.
Or, sold since then but subsequently tenants moved out because of unwanted neighbours and property is on the market. Until a new buyer takes it then new sale date would be reflected.

The estate looks new, about a decade or so in age.
2002 seems to be launch date. The various price reflects size of each property.

Curtain could be left from previous owner, or even developer if not sold to make it looked occupied to avoid vandalism.
Cars could belong to tenants of occupied units making use of the redundant space.
Unoccupied property risks vandalism and squalor. If I were developer I would be wary and take the precaution.
These properties are lined up without much distance in between them, typical of a developer built accommodation, for the working class.

Just a thought that's all, seeing that the Land Registry got no. 5 correct, no reason for other similar records to be wrong, but you never know.

by aiyoyo 01.10.13 5:21

Châtelaine wrote:It indeed means that they haven't been sold since they were bought/acquired originally and are still occupied by the first owners.

The only one standing out is Nr. 5. I do appreciate, that it could mean the price of the lot was GBP 60,000 and the price of the house being constructed wasn't listed [ strange, though, as all lots must have been acquired and then houses must have been constructed, but, yeah...?] and four years later it sold at GBP 460,000. IMO that's still an outrageous price of a [IMO] rather middle-class/no taste [don't shoot me down!] house in a remote region ... And a hefty burden on the monthly income to pay the mortgage.

Yes, inconsistent price of nr. 5 does stand out from the rest, and it is STRANGE.

Personally, I have seen plenty of that kind of estates in UK.

I dont think n. 5 was customised built, as characteristic is same and blend in with the rest, typical of new estates developed by a Developer.

With estate of this type, usually a few unit of show houses of various sizes would be built first to show case to help prospective buyers visualise the complete product but buyers choose their desired unit/plot from plan.

Developer of estate would optimize land space and wont leave a strip empty in between properties, as it does not make sense to do that.
So, yeah, I dont believe No. 5 was just land price. That irregularity is indeed ODD, as is everything to do with the Mc....

by **tigger** 01.10.13 9:57

aiyoyo wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:It indeed means that they haven't been sold since they were bought/acquired originally and are still occupied by the first owners.

The only one standing out is Nr. 5. I do appreciate, that it could mean the price of the lot was GBP 60,000 and the price of the house being constructed wasn't listed [ strange, though, as all lots must have been acquired and then houses must have been constructed, but, yeah...?] and four years later it sold at GBP 460,000. IMO that's still an outrageous price of a [IMO] rather middle-class/no taste [don't shoot me down!] house in a remote region ... And a hefty burden on the monthly income to pay the mortgage.
Yes, inconsistent price of nr. 5 does stand out from the rest, and it is STRANGE.

Personally, I have seen plenty of that kind of estates in UK.

I dont think n. 5 was customised built, as characteristic is same and blend in with the rest, typical of new estates developed by a Developer.

With estate of this type, usually a few unit of show houses of various sizes would be built first to show case to help prospective buyers visualise the complete product but buyers choose their desired unit/plot from plan.

Developer of estate would optimize land space and wont leave a strip empty in between properties, as it does not make sense to do that.
So, yeah, I dont believe No. 5 was just land price. That irregularity is indeed ODD, as is everything to do with the Mc....

It's not so much the fact that nr 5 is an anomaly in that list, iirc the Queniborough was a puzzle as well. I think a poster here wasn't able to find the McCanns on the electoral roll.

The Queniborough house was sold on 20th January 2006.

14 Queniborough Hall Drive,
Queniborough, Leicestershire
LE7 3DZ

Purchased: £185,000 (25th August 2000)......Semi-Detached, Freehold (New Build)
Sold: £300,000 (20th January 2006)......Semi-Detached, Freehold

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Queniborough&streetName=Queniborough+Hall+Drive&summaryIndex=475

-----

Orchard House
5 The Crescent
Rothley, Leicestershire
LE7 7RW

Purchased: £459,950 (20th January 2006)......Detached, Freehold, 5 Beds, 2 Baths, 2 Receps
Previous sale: £60,000 | Sale date: 28th March 2002
Mortgage: 344,950 (£459,950 - £115,000)

This 5 bed freehold house is located at 5 The Crescent, Rothley, Leicester LE7 7RW and has an estimated current value of £474,791. The Crescent has 7 houses on it with a average current value of £457,872, compared to an an average property value of £231,160 for LE7. There have been 2 property sales on The Crescent, LE7 over the last 5 years with an average house price paid of £431,000 and this house was last sold on 20th Jan 2006 for £459,950. There are currently 367 houses and flats to buy in LE7 with an average asking price of £365,369 and 50 homes to rent in LE7 with an average asking rent of £170 pw.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 01.10.13 14:31

That's not so strange then: on the Queniborough place they netted L 115.000, which they put into the Rothley place straight away.

Leaving their mortgage.

Anybody any idea what you'd have to pay on that sort of mortgage, at their ages?

This, in connection with the -first- combined NHS incomes which later became only one NHS income (GMs) plus (private practice?)

Were they actually able to afford such a pricey place when they bought it?

But whoa, wait a second: where did they get the money to buy the Q-place without a mortgage?

They were not rich, at that time, nor were their families; where did L 185.000 cash come from?

by Guest 01.10.13 14:36

We have moved right away from the Wright discussion, can someone start a new thread if you wish to discuss house prices etc.

by ShuBob 01.10.13 14:48

candyfloss wrote: We have moved right away from the Wright discussion, can someone start a new thread if you wish to discuss house prices etc.

Thank you

by ShuBob 01.10.13 14:50

I have no idea why the couple will agree (if they did) for "Crib Note" Wright to claim in court he read or sent them a translation of Amaral's book in August 2008. Where they not concerned about the authenticity of the translation or their concern was only about how outraged they should be?

by Guest 01.10.13 15:08

candyfloss wrote: We have moved right away from the Wright discussion, can someone start a new thread if you wish to discuss house prices etc.

***
Sorry Candyfloss. It was just a "passing remark" winkwink

, when I raised the question of what I thought was a strange thing about the price of their house ... Mea culpa.

by Guest 01.10.13 15:20

Châtelaine wrote:
candyfloss wrote: We have moved right away from the Wright discussion, can someone start a new thread if you wish to discuss house prices etc.
***
Sorry Candyfloss. It was just a "passing remark" , when I raised the question of what I thought was a strange thing about the price of their house ... Mea culpa.

Not aimed at you Chatelaine, roses

there have been many posts discussing their house, I just thought we should stay on topic.

Latest topics