Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Why these properties were not sold at full market price?

Options
  • 10-09-2017 7:31pm
    #1
    YUYAXUAN
    Registered Users Posts: 32 ✭


    Hi everyone, I might be totally over-worried about this.

    So I am about to buy an apartment in the following development and I found that many of the apartments in this development were not sold at full market price(labeled with double stars). Even the apartment I am about to purchase was traded last year with very low price(less than half). I asked the agent and he told me it's because of some accounting scheme in register that I shouldn't be worried and this is actually a good deal..

    I guess one of the potential explanation is affordable home scheme? What do you think about this? Thanks in advance.


    28/07/2017 €176,000.00 119 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELDS RD, BALLYFERMOT DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    07/07/2017 €205,000.00 105 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    19/04/2017 €60,942.51 ** 21 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    13/03/2017 €165,000.00 154 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    23/02/2017 €74,902.71 ** 152 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    22/02/2017 €74,560.29 ** 24 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    08/02/2017 €61,412.36 ** 148 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    08/02/2017 €78,648.73 ** APT 184 BLOCK F SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    08/12/2016 €157,000.00 159 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    07/12/2016 €142,154.74 ** 159 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    02/12/2016 €205,000.00 APT 139 BLOCK E SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    23/11/2016 €122,000.00 ** 185 SEVEN OAKS BLOCK F, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    23/11/2016 €155,000.00 185 SEVEN OAKS BLOCK F, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    15/11/2016 €74,297.61 ** 172 BLOCK E, SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    07/11/2016 €67,239.50 ** 128 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    08/09/2016 €73,314.71 ** 37 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    24/08/2016 €89,886.24 ** 55 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD ROAD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    15/07/2016 €220,000.00 47 AVONDALE HOUSE SEVEN OAKS, OFF CHURCH AVE, RATHMINES, Dublin 6
    17/05/2016 €84,490.08 ** 151 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD ROAD, BALLYFERMOT
    11/04/2016 €150,000.00 APT 107, SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    07/04/2016 €62,697.86 ** 20 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    10/03/2016 €71,156.85 ** 42 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, BALLYFERMOT, Dublin 10


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Nika Bolokov
    Registered Users Posts: 651 ✭✭✭Nika Bolokov


    Never seen so many in one development.


  • Options
    #3
    LincolnHawk
    Registered Users Posts: 364 ✭✭LincolnHawk


    Because Ballyfermot is not ailesbury road?


  • Options
    #4
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    I've seen it before in developments where the developer was in financial trouble and I always thought it was because the properties were bought in a lot as some sort of bail out.


  • Options
    #5
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,465 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Possibly bought as a tranche of properties e.g. 10 different houses being sold in one lot. If that is done, I think they can attribute different values to each of the houses.


  • Options
    #6
    juke
    Registered Users Posts: 1,673 ✭✭✭juke


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Possibly bought as a tranche of properties e.g. 10 different houses being sold in one lot. If that is done, I think they can attribute different values to each of the houses.

    If bought in one lot, there'd usually be one contract for sale with the lot price only - in that case the correct way to stamp the deeds is as one lot, and not to apportion them individually. So the register cannot show the price paid individually.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    CIARAN_BOYLE
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭CIARAN_BOYLE


    The most common reason is a sale between family members.


  • Options
    #8
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »
    The most common reason is a sale between family members.

    Can't really apply here- given the vast variety of sale dates (I think there are only 4 units with contigious sale dates in the development). I suspect that the Affordable Housing scheme- accounts for the sales- I honestly can't see any other reason- though it is remarkably curious- and its also interesting to track the obvious increase in market value in this development over the period in question.


  • Options
    #9
    PopTarts
    Registered Users Posts: 2,196 ✭✭✭PopTarts


    159 Seven Oaks sold on the 7th Dec 2016 and again on the 8th Dec 2016.

    What's that about?


  • Options
    #10
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    PopTarts wrote: »
    159 Seven Oaks sold on the 7th Dec 2016 and again on the 8th Dec 2016.

    What's that about?

    185 sold twice on the same day- 23/11/2016 too.
    In both cases, one sale price was listed as discounted, the second, fair market value. The percentage difference in the prices on the two units- varies vastly though- there isn't a nice round 10 or 20% discount to point at.......

    The more you look at these- the stranger they get..........


  • Options
    #11
    spaceHopper
    Registered Users Posts: 3,966 ✭✭✭spaceHopper


    Probably the bank selling them to private investment funds and they are now getting out of the game.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Cuddlesworth
    Registered Users Posts: 13,980 ✭✭✭✭Cuddlesworth


    You would have to assume they are pretty much half market rate. They have never been up for rent that I can see or up for sale in recent past.

    Either there have been a load of divorces there or possibly the builder/developer picked up a lot of the units and is going through a divorce. Selling assets as they pick up enough capital to be able to refinance each property in turn?


  • Options
    #13
    OwlsZat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,510 ✭✭✭OwlsZat


    I saw this once and was told that it was a foreign investor that had bought them from NAMA in one bunch. I'd expect the same here.


  • Options
    #14
    Cuddlesworth
    Registered Users Posts: 13,980 ✭✭✭✭Cuddlesworth


    OwlsZat wrote: »
    I saw this once and was told that it was a foreign investor that had bought them from NAMA in one bunch. I'd expect the same here.

    They were not sold in one lot though, all at different times and we are far past 50% bad loan values in Dublin.


  • Options
    #15
    Colonel Claptrap
    Registered Users Posts: 945 ✭✭✭Colonel Claptrap


    Could the council have bought them at a discount, using Part 5 rules?


  • Options
    #16
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Colonel Claptrap wrote: »
    Could the council have bought them at a discount, using Part 5 rules?

    Possibly- but the patterns doesn't really support this (they'd tend to be bought in a batch). Also the council buys on the open market- and these are mostly (but not all) at discounted prices. It doesn't make a lot of sense.


  • Options
    #17
    Colonel Claptrap
    Registered Users Posts: 945 ✭✭✭Colonel Claptrap


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Possibly- but the patterns doesn't really support this (they'd tend to be bought in a batch). Also the council buys on the open market- and these are mostly (but not all) at discounted prices. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

    I thought that the council buy directly from the builder at a discounted rate? Wasn't there a story at the weekend of a Dalkey development offered to the council at 500k+ per unit?


  • Options
    #18
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Colonel Claptrap wrote: »
    I thought that the council buy directly from the builder at a discounted rate? Wasn't there a story at the weekend of a Dalkey development offered to the council at 500k+ per unit?

    In some instances- however- these prices are all over the place, some are discounted, some not, the percentage discount isn't constant- and then the pattern where some were sold on consecutive days etc- is just all over the place........... It just looks odd.


  • Options
    #19
    Colonel Claptrap
    Registered Users Posts: 945 ✭✭✭Colonel Claptrap


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    In some instances- however- these prices are all over the place, some are discounted, some not, the percentage discount isn't constant- and then the pattern where some were sold on consecutive days etc- is just all over the place........... It just looks odd.

    Agreed.
    I seen a similar development with very random prices for almost identical houses, all built this year. I can't get my head around it.

    Could the council have asked for extras in one which are not in another? For example the council might have 2 families in mind for 2 houses. One is for an elderly person who needs hand rails, a downstairs disabled toilet etc. The other might be for a family with small kids who need built in bunk beds, wardrobes etc?

    Clutching at straws here, but I can't make sense of it.


  • Options
    #20
    Colonel Claptrap
    Registered Users Posts: 945 ✭✭✭Colonel Claptrap


    The consecutive days looks like whoever is in charge of the register fat fingered when inputting data and never bothered to delete the mistake.


  • Options
    #21
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Colonel Claptrap wrote: »
    The consecutive days looks like whoever is in charge of the register fat fingered when inputting data and never bothered to delete the mistake.

    They did it a few times though- and featured completely different prices........
    Its just bizarre. Also- it calls into question whether anyone should be using this data for any purpose- if its full of mistakes that are never removed.........

    Anyhow- I doubt we're ever going to definitively know what the story with it is...........


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Cunning Stunt
    Registered Users Posts: 1,292 ✭✭✭Cunning Stunt


    Don't the asterixes (**) on the prices mean something though? I think it says on the daft site when the aaterixes are there, that it wasn't the final selling price or something like that. Can't check now because daft site is not working on my phone...


  • Options
    #23
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users Posts: 5,227 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    Cunning Stunt wrote: »
    Don't the asterixes (**) on the prices mean something though? I think it says on the daft site when the aaterixes are there, that it wasn't the final selling price or something like that. Can't check now because daft site is not working on my phone...
    I indicates that it's not the full market price:
    Residential Property Price Register wrote:
    In a small number of transactions included in the Register the price shown does not represent the full market price of the property concerned for a variety of reasons. For example, the price declared may reflect the retention of an interest in the property by the previous owner, or the fact that a part or fraction only of the property is being purchased; alternatively, the property may have been purchased at a reduced price under the Affordable Homes Scheme. In addition, in a very small number of cases, properties may be declared as purchased in exchange for other property, stocks and shares, etc. All such properties are marked **.
    Source


  • Options
    #24
    Dfu1
    Registered Users Posts: 2 ✭Dfu1


    YUYAXUAN wrote: »
    Hi everyone, I might be totally over-worried about this.

    So I am about to buy an apartment in the following development and I found that many of the apartments in this development were not sold at full market price(labeled with double stars). Even the apartment I am about to purchase was traded last year with very low price(less than half). I asked the agent and he told me it's because of some accounting scheme in register that I shouldn't be worried and this is actually a good deal..

    I guess one of the potential explanation is affordable home scheme? What do you think about this? Thanks in advance.


    28/07/2017 €176,000.00 119 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELDS RD, BALLYFERMOT DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    07/07/2017 €205,000.00 105 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    19/04/2017 €60,942.51 ** 21 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    13/03/2017 €165,000.00 154 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    23/02/2017 €74,902.71 ** 152 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    22/02/2017 €74,560.29 ** 24 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    08/02/2017 €61,412.36 ** 148 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    08/02/2017 €78,648.73 ** APT 184 BLOCK F SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    08/12/2016 €157,000.00 159 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    07/12/2016 €142,154.74 ** 159 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    02/12/2016 €205,000.00 APT 139 BLOCK E SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    23/11/2016 €122,000.00 ** 185 SEVEN OAKS BLOCK F, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    23/11/2016 €155,000.00 185 SEVEN OAKS BLOCK F, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    15/11/2016 €74,297.61 ** 172 BLOCK E, SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    07/11/2016 €67,239.50 ** 128 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    08/09/2016 €73,314.71 ** 37 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    24/08/2016 €89,886.24 ** 55 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD ROAD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    15/07/2016 €220,000.00 47 AVONDALE HOUSE SEVEN OAKS, OFF CHURCH AVE, RATHMINES, Dublin 6
    17/05/2016 €84,490.08 ** 151 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD ROAD, BALLYFERMOT
    11/04/2016 €150,000.00 APT 107, SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    07/04/2016 €62,697.86 ** 20 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, DUBLIN 10, Dublin 10
    10/03/2016 €71,156.85 ** 42 SEVEN OAKS, SARSFIELD RD, BALLYFERMOT, Dublin 10

    The majority of properties in this development where bought under the affordable housing scheme and the small sale values would simply be the owners buying out the council to take on the full loan anybody could do this after 2 years (I think)


Advertisement