Re: WRIGHT'S FOLLY - Dr. Martin Roberts

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