On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 19:58:16 +0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , Phil Cook
writes
https://www.flickr.com/photos/reclin...7650538846330/

There's a for sale sign on a house in that bottom picture. Thats what I
call wishful thinking even in London!

It has a boarded-up downstairs window, and its front door is inside the
work area. Network Rail will have bought that house along with the one
they've demolished, and when they've finished patching up the 'join'
will make it available for occupation.

It was previously advertised on the rental market at £949 pcm.

In 2010.

That was number 27, which has been demolished. So quite likely no owner
occupier lost their home. Last "recorded"[1] as sold in 2004 for £152k
and currently valued by Zoopla - despite being a pile of rubble, at £260k.

No sales/rental history available for number 25 (the one currently being
used as a NR portaloo) since 1995. Suggests it was a compulsory purchase
from a long term owner occupier.

Or there has been no transfer of ownership involving payment since
prices became a matter of public record.

No. 23 next door was recently sold for £265,000

August 2014. And has clearly fed into the value of number 27 (had it been still standing).

[1] But that's not unexpected because they only publish sales on the open
market, not stuff like compulsory purchases.

Presumably these properties were blighted many years ago, once the
Crossrail plans were known? So number 23 might have been worth rather more
without the project.

In message , at 23:00:11 on
Mon, 23 Feb 2015, Charles Ellson remarked:
No sales/rental history available for number 25 (the one currently being
used as a NR portaloo) since 1995. Suggests it was a compulsory purchase
from a long term owner occupier.

Or there has been no transfer of ownership involving payment since
prices became a matter of public record.

The Land Registry data available to the public via sites like Zoopla
only includes sales made on the open market. So a transfer by compulsory
purchase (or even a voluntary sale after being contacted by Network
Rail, or whoever) would not show up.

Unless NR-or-whoever has owned the house since 1995, and given they've
got possession, I'd go for the off-books purchase.

Same arguments for number 27.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote

Or there has been no transfer of ownership involving payment since
prices became a matter of public record.

The Land Registry data available to the public via sites like Zoopla
only includes sales made on the open market. So a transfer by compulsory
purchase (or even a voluntary sale after being contacted by Network
Rail, or whoever) would not show up.

Have you a cite that voluntary sales are excluded ?

http://houseprices.landregistry.gov.uk/
"all of the residential property sales"

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...se-price-index
The HPI is published by Land Registry using sales data collected on all
residential housing transactions, whether for cash or with a mortgage, in
England and Wales since January 1995.
==

Oops, found
https://www.gov.uk/about-the-price-p...rice-paid-data

Our House Price Index and Price Paid Data exclude:

all commercial transactions. By this we mean any transaction that
involves a transfer to a corporate body, company or business

transfers, conveyances, assignments or leases at a premium with nominal rent
which a
[...]
under a compulsory purchase order
[...]


So not exactly "excludes other than open market" but as above.


--
Mike D

In message , at 16:44:53 on Tue, 24
Feb 2015, Michael R N Dolbear remarked:
Oops, found
https://www.gov.uk/about-the-price-p...-from-the-hous
e-price-index-and-price-paid-data

Our House Price Index and Price Paid Data exclude:

all commercial transactions. By this we mean any transaction that
involves a transfer to a corporate body, company or business

transfers, conveyances, assignments or leases at a premium with nominal
rent which a
[...]
under a compulsory purchase order
[...]

So not exactly "excludes other than open market" but as above.

You snipped:

"sales that were not for full market value."

What I hadn't remembered was it also excludes:

"buy to let (where they can be identified by a mortgage deed)"

which is typically what could have been happening in several houses in
that particular street.

--
Roland Perry