logo
Is THIS the most overpriced semi-detached in Britain? House hunters stunned after couple put three-bed home on sale for £2M over average asking price... but neighbours say it is worth it

Is THIS the most overpriced semi-detached in Britain? House hunters stunned after couple put three-bed home on sale for £2M over average asking price... but neighbours say it is worth it

Daily Mail​5 days ago
A couple have infuriated house hunters online after listing their home for almost £2million over the average sale price of their street.
Residents reacted with 'shock' and 'disbelief' after the ordinary looking property in Hove, East Sussex was put on the market for a staggering £2.5million.
The asking price for the smartly presented property has caused consternation among potential buyers who have claimed it is 'overpriced.'
They claim that although the red-brick home has a sought-after seaside location, it actually backs onto a block of high rise flats and sits on a busy road which has a high crime rate.
The owners - who are in their late 80s - bought the property in East Sussex in 2010 for £750,000 but have now put it on the market for more than three times that amount.
According to property experts Purple Bricks, the average cost of a house on the street where the couple are looking to sell is £600k.
One resident told MailOnline: 'I'm shocked. It's incredible how much house prices have risen in the last 15 years but I'd never expect a house to be on the market for so much - it's a King's ransom.
'It's unbelievable really. I understand it is in a desirable location but this road is very busy all the time and the back garden looks out over the flats - not exactly a beautiful view.'
The house sits just 100 yards from the pebble beach.
The elderly couple are understood to be selling it so they can downsize away from the seafront.
Hove is a well-heeled and desirable location to live where the average price of a detached house is £846,600.
Neighbour Barbara Crafts, said: 'They are a lovely couple but they're getting on.
'Although the house only has three bedrooms it is deceptively large and the bedrooms are huge and have walk-in dressing rooms.'
Mrs Crafts, who is in her 70s, who lives in a spacious three-bedroom flat on the street, said: 'Although it looks quite ordinary from the front it is a lovely house and very spacious and they've spent some money doing it up.
'I've lived here for around eight years and my children who live up north are always telling me to sell. They tell me I could buy a fantastic property near them for just a fraction.'
The house, which boasts a drive and a garage, also has a study, dining room, sitting room, four bathrooms and an attic games and media room.
Rachel Dent, a mother-of-two who lives in a two-bedroom flat on the street, said: 'That is an awful lot of money but that house is like a tardis - it is absolutely massive on the inside. There is 250sqm of living space, which is huge.
'It is deceptive as from the outside it looks like it could be in any street in Britain but it goes back a long away and is really very big. It might not have the wow factor on the outside but the inside is a different story.'
The property is immaculately turned out inside with a host of homely fittings
Viewers checking the online listing questioned how the 'modest' home could command such a high price.
One said: 'Those flats overlooking the back would be an instant no for me even if dirt cheap. Half the house is the master suite. Seems unnecessary.'
Another said: '£2.5m is insane money for this. Surely its not worth even close to that. Even at half, it would be steep, no?'
Another viewer said: 'How much!? And why does that main bedroom need two dressing rooms and such a huge bathroom?! Should have just made one of the dressing rooms a guest room instead.'
Yet another said: 'Faaaaar too much.Front of property faces west, back faces east. Front faces a row of guest houses/hotels including a God awful 60's(?) 5 story guest house directly opposite.
'Back faces an 11 story block of flats. So, no privacy and no sunlight in the morning or evening.'
It's an ambitious asking price, but not the most audacious in recent memory.
Last year, a Russian millionaire who tried to sell a London 'council house' for £3.5m was forced to concede defeat and make a drastic u-turn.
The ordinary-looking four-bed suburban property had attracted widespread mockery due to its eye-watering price tag when it was listed last year.
But owner Lukov Nikolov refused to bow down claiming the fee was justified because he spent £1.4m renovating the property.
When MailOnline visited the house, more than a year after it was put on the market, neighbours revealed the wealthy businessman had been forced 'move in himself' after failing to find a buyer.
The house was built in the late 1950s and used by police officers relocating to work in London for the Met Police.
But in every other respect it's equivalent to nearby council housing in style and size.
Despite being unable to find househunters with deep enough pockets, Mr Nikolov then listed another property on the same road for £3m.
One resident told MailOnline: 'He's got another one too, just up the road, which has been on the market for a while.
'The [second property] is huge. It's got a basement, a cinema and all the rest of it. They've probably doubled the square footage.
'I think he probably moves between them.'
Mr Nikolov bought the first property for £1.2m in 2015 and began to renovate inside.
He was able to dig down and create a new spacious basement 'flooded with natural light', which increased the properties' square footage by a third.
The home now deceptively spreads over 3650sq ft of interior space and has four floors as well as its own cinema room, which, in the view of Mr Nikolov justified the £2.3million increase in value.
Mr Nikolov's second property was bough for the cheaper fee of £878,000 before renovating it too.
Properties in Canonbury sold for an overall average price of £934,290 in the last few years, according to RightMove, with the majority of sales being flats, which sold for an average price of £633,512.
Terraced properties sold for an average of £1,659,972, with semi-detached properties fetching £3,873,333 - placing Mr Nikolov's property slightly below average.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Anthony Joshua teases surprise move into another sport amid Jake Paul showdown talks
Anthony Joshua teases surprise move into another sport amid Jake Paul showdown talks

The Independent

time13 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Anthony Joshua teases surprise move into another sport amid Jake Paul showdown talks

Anthony Joshua has taken to social media to make a plea to Matchroom boss Eddie Hearn over a business venture in a different sport. Since turning professional in 2013 Joshua has been attached to the Matchroom banner, a partnership that led to two-time world champion status for the 2012 Olympic gold medallist. Currently sidelined as he recovers from elbow surgery he underwent earlier this year, Joshua appears to be brainstorming ideas for life after boxing, suggesting to Hearn that they tackle football agency together. He posted on his Instagram story: 'Eddie Hearn, the family has conquered darts, snooker, pool, boxing, fishing, golf, owning a football club & you've had a presence in basketball, netball & gymnastics. 'I believe 'we' could look at the football agency industry and have a strong presence. 'Imagine we help manager the player who helped England win the World Cup. 'Call me tomorrow mate.' Eddie Hearn's father, founder of Matchroom Barry Hearn, owned English Football League club Leyton Orient for the best part of two decades, but that is the limit of the family's direct involvement in the sport. However, Matchroom's success across a variety of sports would give them instant authority in the world of football. There has been some overlap with football agencies and promotions in the past, with one of the biggest companies in soccer, Wasserman, buying Team Sauerland and creating Wasserman Boxing in 2021. In May, Joshua confirmed that he was exploring the possibility of buying shares in hometown football club Watford. The Hornets have bounced between the Premier League and Championship over the past 20 years, but whilst Joshua is fond of the club, it appeared to be more of a financial decision. He told Seconds Out: "We wanted to move into private equity, venture capital funds. As you earn, naturally, you want to save. "So rather than me spending recklessly I'm trying to invest money into certain asset classes and that was an opportunity that presented itself. 'Nothing's come of it yet. It's a serious investment. If it comes off it's one that should do well. 'If they went back to the Premier League, then I'd need to get a shop on Market Street because the traffic that would be coming through Watford would be phenomenal. 'If we don't do it then good luck to them anyway because they're a great team." Speculation has surrounded Joshua in recent days, with rumours about his next opponent. Latest Queensberry recruit Tony Yoka is one mooted option, but Jake Paul's camp have claimed that talks with Matchroom have started regarding a potential bout between their fighter and Joshua. DAZN Matchroom, Queensberry, Golden Boy, Misfits, PFL, BKFC, GLORY and more. An Annual Saver subscription is a one-off cost of £119.99 / $224.99 (for 12 months access), that's just 64p / $1.21 per fight. There is also a Monthly Flex Pass option (cancel any time) at £24.99 / $29.99 per month. A subscription includes weekly magazine shows, comprehensive fight library, exclusive interviews, behind-the-scenes documentaries, and podcasts and vodcasts.

Heathrow's third runway plan is wrong – and not just because of noise and pollution
Heathrow's third runway plan is wrong – and not just because of noise and pollution

The Independent

time13 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Heathrow's third runway plan is wrong – and not just because of noise and pollution

Here we go again. To say there is a deja vu aspect to the latest proposal to build Heathrow's third runway is an understatement. For reasons that are not clear, Sir Keir Starmer has determined the airport's expansion to be a key plank in the government's economic growth strategy. Seemingly, he did not take into account the issues that grounded the plans in the past, as far back as 1968 – namely, Heathrow's unfortunate and unavoidable proximity to the M25, the rivers and their valleys that cross that part of west London, the additional noise pollution, and the need for improved and costly transport links to and from the centre of the capital that will result from the vast uplift in passengers. On the constant sound from the increased number of planes landing and taking off, the prime minister will insist that great technological strides have been made in curbing the din. It is true that new aircraft are less noisy. However, they are still extremely audible, there will be more of them, and they will be flying over a heavily residential area. As for the rest, nothing has altered fundamentally, environmentally and logistically, since Heathrow last submitted a scheme, pre-Covid. Inflation means the bill is now an eye-watering £49bn. The bill, ultimately, will be borne by the air passenger, and Heathrow is already the most expensive airport in the world. Will the airlines and their customers stomach at least a doubling in charges? There is the thorny problem, too, of public transport to and from London. The London mayor will be expected to find a way to enable an extra 60 million people a year to use Heathrow. Transport for London is strapped for cash, struggling to upgrade the Tube network. How the additional demand will be met is not clear. What has shifted as well is the nature of air travel. Post-pandemic, business travel is down and looks unlikely to recover – that, certainly, is what the industry is saying. During the outbreak, holding meetings remotely came into its own and employers took a hard look at their budgets – Zoom or Teams often represent a better alternative in executive time and expense. That therefore raises a major doubt about one of the main claims made for Heathrow's extension. It is said to be necessary to enhance London and the UK's standing in the business world, but how, if the commercial users are not there? There has been movement too, and not of the positive kind, in attitude towards Heathrow the operator. The power outage that shut down the plum in Starmer's vision for resurgence and global acclaim was a shocking episode; it not only highlighted a neglected infrastructure but also a failure of management. Thomas Woldbye, who is seeking permission to build this national project, is the same boss who slept through the night as Britain's busiest airport ceased to function. Heathrow's reputation in the sector was already poor, but this took it to a new low. Woldbye has an idea that is different from the one previously suggested, which is to build the third runway over the M25, taking the motorway underneath – and all without any disruption to road users. This is fanciful even without a track record that hardly inspires confidence. Which raises another question. Why? Why should Heathrow as a company get to preside over the airport's improvement and reap the benefits? If we're all agreed that it is a vital national asset, holding a pivotal place in the economy, then why should the incumbent be in charge, not to mention entrusted, with its development? Those who wax lyrical about Heathrow's importance like to reminisce about how Britain led the transformation of international aviation. Boosting the airport is seen as completing that journey. It is the case that we once did. That was in the Margaret Thatcher era, when British Airways was freed from the shackles of state ownership. Thatcher did more than that, though. She enabled and encouraged competition, giving a steer to the challengers and disruptors, notably to Richard Branson at Virgin and Michael Bishop at British Midland. The newly privatised BA was forced to raise its game, and together, these three set new standards. There appears to be an assumption that Woldbye's company must be given the job. But there is another option. Surinder Arora, the self-made billionaire who has masterminded the building of leading hotels at Heathrow and other airports and is a substantial Heathrow landowner, has his own remedy. His is much cheaper, envisaging a shorter runway that does not affect the M25. It is easy to dismiss Arora. But he is popular with the airlines, he rails rightly against Heathrow's pricing, and he knows a thing or two about customer service. He also possesses heavyweight advisers in the shape of Bechtel, the US engineering, construction and project management giant. He deserves to be taken seriously. Heathrow needs a competitor. Likewise, if neither the airport operator nor Arora is selected and the third runway is again kiboshed, then surely serious thought must be given to expanding rival airports. Heathrow has been resting on its laurels for too long. As for Starmer, he perhaps should ask himself how it is that someone who professes to be forensic legally is so capable of displaying rushes of blood to the head politically. Giving Heathrow such prominence smacks of impetuousness. He's done it and has been left with an almighty headache.

How drivers were sold a car finance compensation fantasy
How drivers were sold a car finance compensation fantasy

Times

time14 minutes ago

  • Times

How drivers were sold a car finance compensation fantasy

Britain has narrowly avoided a costly car finance compensation free-for-all after a landmark court ruling derailed chances of a payout for millions of drivers. Claims lawyers had been bombarding consumers with adverts suggesting they may have been entitled to thousands of pounds in a scandal over hidden commission on car finance deals. The scandal had been expected to rival the mis-selling of payment protection insurance, which cost banks more than £38 billion. It was thought that nearly 15 million drivers could be entitled to payouts worth as much as £44 billion in total — although Friday's Supreme Court ruling means the numbers are set to be far smaller. Questions have now been raised over whether those using car finance really lost out and how many of them deserve compensation at all. The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, had tried to intervene ahead of the ruling — arguing that a colossal compensation bill for the industry would damage the economy and consumers. The Supreme Court ruled on three cases where consumers bought cars on finance and argued that they had been treated unfairly because they had not been told about commission involved in their deals — which ranged from £183 to £1,651. The court rejected two of the three cases, but upheld a complaint by Marcus Johnson, a factory worker from south Wales — because in his case the £1,651 commission in his loan was 55 per cent of the fee (including interest) on his loan over five years. 'The fact that the undisclosed commission was so high is a powerful indication that the relationship between Mr Johnson and the lender was unfair,' the court's judgment said. It leaves the door open to claims for compensation on deals that contained large amounts of commission, or where the commission model influenced what they paid. How much would be needed for a deal to be unfair is something that is likely to be decided by the City regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which said it would confirm if it would introduce a redress scheme before stock markets open on Monday morning. The FCA had been investigating finance deals that had used a model called discretionary commission, which incentivised dealers to give customers a worse interest rate on their loan. However, a judgment by the Court of Appeal last October opened the door to compensation claims by millions of motorists who had bought cars on finance, regardless of the commission model. Lenders appealed to the Supreme Court over the ruling. About nine in ten cars are bought on finance and £39.7 billion was borrowed on more than two million cars in the year to May, according to the Finance and Leasing Association, a trade body. The Court of Appeal had ruled in October that car dealers had a duty to make clear the nature and value of any commission paid to them to ensure that borrowers could give 'informed consent' before agreeing to a deal. Reeves was among those concerned about a claims free-for-all, with the Treasury reportedly drawing up contingency plans to shield lenders from having to pay out billions of pounds in compensation. The Treasury attempted to intervene in the Supreme Court case, arguing that a ruling had 'the potential to adversely affect the United Kingdom's reputation as a place to do business, with a consequent impact on economic growth'. In the meantime complaints about car loans to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), a body that solves disputes, have risen from 4,130 in the first three months of 2023-24 to 37,230 in the last three months of 2024-25. Most of these have been brought by claims companies and no-win, no-fee law firms that file complaints on behalf of consumers in return for up to 30 per cent of any compensation. These companies have swamped radio, social media and television with adverts that tell consumers they could be owed thousands of pounds. On Thursday the FCA said it had required 224 adverts from claims firms about car finance to either be taken down or changed. There had been highly speculative figures advertised for how much consumers could get back, it said, including compensation figures that did not make clear they covered multiple car loans and misleading claims that refunds were guaranteed. It said companies had been signing up consumers without their consent after they clicked on adverts. Philip Salter, a former FCA regulator now at the consultancy Sicsic Advisory, said: 'I haven't liked a lot of the claims company advertising. You've had a lot of companies arguing that time is running out, but the clock hasn't even started. It's been a bit of an unseemly scramble.' • Common sense has triumphed over compensation culture If there is to be compensation for consumers, it is expected that the FCA will announce a free redress scheme where lenders will contact those eligible, meaning consumers should not need to use a claims company. Gary Greenwood from the investment bank Shore Capital said: 'It's one of those things where if you go by the letter of the law of the previous Court of Appeal judgment, you're almost coming to the conclusion that commission is bad. But the problem is that if you look at the reality of what had happened, there doesn't seem to have been a lot of consumer harm that's gone on. 'So any sort of redress has got to come down to: has there been any consumer harm here, or are people just trying to claim money back on a technicality?' Greenwood said. Charlie Nunn, the chief executive of Lloyds Banking Group, which runs Britain's biggest car finance lender, Black Horse, has denied the scandal was on the same level as PPI. 'Some 80 per cent of people need finance to buy a new car, and a large number of second-hand car buyers do as well,' he told The Times in January. 'We need a well-functioning motor finance industry that supports consumers.' The National Franchised Dealers Association, a trade body, told the Supreme Court that 'nobody goes to a car dealer with a reasonable expectation that it is acting without self-interest in relation to any of the products it sells'. The Supreme Court's judgment could have been the difference between lenders facing a compensation bill of £11 billion — for complaints about a specific form of commission — and £29 billion, according to Royal Bank of Canada Capital Markets, an investment bank. It could also have led to compensation claims about the sale of other financial products such as insurance where commission was involved but not properly disclosed. Consumers in turn could have had to foot the bill. Stuart Masson, the editor of the advice website The Car Expert UK, said that if lenders have to pay compensation to millions of people, car finance could get more expensive in the future as the industry tries to 'claw back' that money. 'That's not money they're going to find down the back of the sofa,' he told the BBC. 'They're going to have to get that back from increasing the costs of future lending, which won't just be on car finance. It could be on credit cards, it could be on personal loans, it could be on mortgages.' In January Reeves told bankers at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland: 'There is nothing pro-consumer about making it harder for people to buy an affordable car for their family.' Before the courts widened the scope of possible mis-selling, the FCA had been investigating a specific model of commission called discretionary commission. This is where the cut that lenders paid dealers was linked to the interest rate consumers were charged, incentivising dealers to charge borrowers more. This model was used in about 35 per cent of car finance deals, according to the FCA, before it banned the practice in January 2021. The FCA said consumers could have paid about £1,100 more in interest over a four-year £10,000 car finance deal because of this commission model — which is being used as the basis for many of the estimates around possible compensation. Salter, who worked on the ban when he was at the FCA, said: 'That previous Court of Appeal ruling surprised me. I think everyone knows that if they're buying a car the salesman's getting commission, don't they? But discretionary commission never felt right to me.' The FCA began its investigation in January last year on whether consumers had been properly told about the link between their repayments and the commission. The investigation was kicked off by two rulings by the ombudsman against Lloyds and Barclays last year, which ordered the banks to refund two consumers more than £1,000 each. The FCA is expected to set out its next steps, including whether there will be a redress scheme, within six weeks. Any scheme would be free and easy for consumers to use, it said, while the FOS is also free for consumers to appeal to. Rob Lilley-Jones from the consumer group Which? said: 'It's vital that finance firms are held accountable for mis-selling and if a large number of motorists are eligible for compensation consumers are likely to be bombarded with ads from claims firms offering to take on their case. 'Affected customers should be careful when enlisting the services of claims management companies as the wrong choice could lead to their case being poorly handled, losing a significant portion of the compensation in legal fees — or both.' Coby Benson from the law firm Bott & Co, which helped win the ombudsman's case against Lloyds, said the experience from PPI was that consumers could sometimes recover more money by going to court than through a redress scheme. He said: 'We would support a proactive redress scheme if it fairly compensated consumers. But we have doubts over the effective implementation of a scheme, because our data shows that about half of clients have a different address now to that which the lender had from the time of the agreement.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store