Are TV property shows partially responsible for the house boom? Now the house boom is over (?) and the threat of repossession rears its ugly head – is it irresponsible for broadcasters to keep showing and / or making more property programmes?
On the suggestion of a viewer, property is one of the debates being considered bookie’s favourite for the main debate The TV Show on Saturday (1 March 5 April, 4.05pm).
What do you think?
Find out more about The TV Show debates, have your say and find out how to take part in the show.
Find out what people are saying about C4 shows across the forums in Forum Buzz.
Whats definitely for sure is that these programmes have actively encouraged people to buy properties, do them up and sell them on for a profit - this has added to the problem of the lack of affordable housing.
I don't think you can blame 'TV' for the artifically inflating the housing boom. Just because we're being shown how Mr and Mrs Average get on when they buy and renovate, doesn't mean we should all assume our experiences are going to be the same. Not all outcomes are favourable either. If the numerous property shows were painting a false view of the housing market, perhaps by declaring you can make so much money in a certain amount of time, then this would be misleading, but this simply isn't the case. Especially in various programmes in recent years.
Originally posted by Jim of the south: Whats definitely for sure is that these programmes have actively encouraged people to buy properties, do them up and sell them on for a profit - this has added to the problem of the lack of affordable housing.
And also created amateur landlords who know nothing of their legal responsibilities as well as fueling the rip-off letting agencies.
I like Phil & Kirsty (the rest are painful immitators!) but they undoubtedly push the property-for-investment angle. "..but buy somewhere because you want to live in it.." is often added as an afterthought. How they love to tell the new owner, on the revisited shows, how much they've "made" in the short space of time they've been in the new place. No need for it whatsoever.
There is a voyeur in a lot of us that enjoys watching folk go through the process of house evaluation, which is why the shows are so popular. However, in the current slowdown (almost certainly to accelerate) their demeanour is going to have to change otherwise they will look irrelevent at best and plain callous at worst.
------------------------------ 35% constitutes neither a majority nor a mandate
I don't really watch them but when I do I think that they can encourage people to make huge mistakes, the advice is a bit dodgy to say the least. Renovating a property is an important decision, not one to be taken lightly. It needs to be financed and unless you already have a lot of money to invest and employ builders, have more than one or two projects, you will fatally overstretch yourself if you set out trying to make a living out of it. There is always the chance of a slump mid project and then you have lost the lot.
I met a French couple on holiday and they said thay don't have any property show like ours over there, as it is illegal to sell any property that you have owned for less than five years.
While I personally think that's a bit harsh, you can see why they have that law.
I enjoy watching property shows but yes, they definitely do need to take some of the blame for the current insane shortage of affordable housing - for people to buy and live in.
Originally posted by ShoppingGirl: I met a French couple on holiday and they said thay don't have any property show like ours over there, as it is illegal to sell any property that you have owned for less than five years.
While I personally think that's a bit harsh, you can see why they have that law.
I enjoy watching property shows but yes, they definitely do need to take some of the blame for the current insane shortage of affordable housing - for people to buy and live in.
Its a very good idea (the French law) - stops people buying who have no intention of living there but just sell it on at a profit.
It will be good when the new spate of shows get made and we can see the look on the peoples faces when they have still made a loss six months later, rather than their current smug faces.
Also did you know that the BBC is still showing Homes Under the Hammer which was made in 2003 ! and bears no relation to the current market.
many property shows are dreadfully out of date and when repeated they should insert the current market value alongside the misleading valuation given when the programme was first made, or make it absolutely clear when the valuation was made.
If you watch A Place in the Sun for example some of the valuations are 5 years out of date.
Are we lovers, or only just friends, come tomorrow, will I be lonely again?
Homes Under The Hammer is a brilliant show - the cream of the property crop.
I saw an old 'Location' episode the other night, a four bedroom stone built terraced house in a good area in Hastings with gardens and copious studies etc cost 187k
And they hummed and hawed over the price - oh the joy of hindsight eh.
Originally posted by ShoppingGirl: Homes Under The Hammer is a brilliant show - the cream of the property crop.
I saw an old 'Location' episode the other night, a four bedroom stone built terraced house in a good area in Hastings with gardens and copious studies etc cost 187k that must have been a few years back
And they hummed and hawed over the price - oh the joy of hindsight eh.
Are we lovers, or only just friends, come tomorrow, will I be lonely again?
Do you consider recent programmes about people with unusual bodies and ailments as educational or offensive?
Why should it be offensive?
That implies that people with unusual ailments should be ashamed of their illnesses.
If people have been suffereing from ailments that their doctors have trouble diagnosing, and they see a programme on the TV showing other with the same symptoms, then surely the programme is educational. Additionally, showing such programmes will ensure that sufferers are not sneered at by people who do not understand the problems.
NO ONE SHOULD BE MADE TO BE ASHAMED OF THEIR BODIES BECAUSE SMALL MINDED PEOPLE MAY FIND IT OFFENSIVE.
******************************** John Smith: So what am I then? Nothing. I`m just a story.
Doctor: You`re an echo. That`s all. A TimeLord is so much more. A sum of knowledge; a code. A shared history. A shared suffering. Only it`s gone now, all of it. Gone forever.
Contrary to previous posts, it is NOT illegal to resell a house in France within 5 years, it merely has tax disadvantages. It's about the same as if you sell a house here which is not your primary place of dwelling - it's treated as commerce and there are capital gains and VAT implications and return of some grants.
Originally posted by ShoppingGirl: I met a French couple on holiday and they said thay don't have any property show like ours over there, as it is illegal to sell any property that you have owned for less than five years.
While I personally think that's a bit harsh, you can see why they have that law.
I enjoy watching property shows but yes, they definitely do need to take some of the blame for the current insane shortage of affordable housing - for people to buy and live in.
quote:
Conveyancing fees on properties less than five years old are 3% compared to 7% on older buildings. There is usually a 5%, rather than a 10%, deposit and often a two-year exemption from local taxes. The sting in the tale is there is 19.6% VAT on the price and if the property is sold within five years VAT is also payable on the profits as well as capital gains tax.
I think that TV shows have just fuelled the British passion for all thing housey related.
The real culprits of the housing crisis are the Government. They allowed BTL Mortgages for amateur landlords and have failed to make any radical adjustments to the 1980s Right To Buy legislation to allow Councils to build affordable rented homes. Also convenient that a lot of MPs own more than one property.
I would like to see BTL mortgages abolished, at least temporarily. Also, for it to be illegal for 'investors' to buy property without intending to rent it out or live in the property themselves.
I like Phil & Kirsty too and also agree that their comments about how their buyer's properties have made X000s in 6 or 12 months. Property isn't a licence to make money - it offers a basic need of shelter and warmth.
I am tired, I am weary. I could sleep for a thousand years.
Originally posted by ugetmi: Partially responsible?
Absolutely, and C4's "Property Ladder" is possibly the worst offender...............>> << ....It's all about property speculation for the fast buck.
I'd go along with that, as well as all the other programmes in the genre. It has encouraged people to see a house as an investment, rather than somewhere to live. This has helped to fuel the house price rise, which now prevents many people even getting on the bottom rung of the ladder.
........................................................................ Support the PAS Go with the FLO
I think that the programmes have helped to breed a kind of 'greed' associated with the market. For example, climbing the property ladder by buying, doing up and then selling at a profit, or buy-to-let. Also by encourging "cheeky offers" when they know vendor is desperate to sell or if it's a probate property. I've nothing against people trying to make it in the market or to get a good value purchase, but sometimes it seems a bit unbalanced. Also, I think some shows have a lot to answer for in terms of encouraging people to look at the way houses are dressed up to sell. Granted, if you are selling you have to make it appealing but at the end of the day, if I am looking for a home I look at the location and the basic structure and layout. I'm not too interested in the decoration or how many vases of flowers/freshly baked loaves there are. Yes, there is a subconcious at work but buyers should be encouraged to look beyond superficial appearances and decide whether the home is the right one for them. And what's with all the suggestions to tear down walls and add bathrooms and put the kitchen somewhere else? I see the faces of normal people wanting to buy a house and then live in it, with only an intial trip to the DIY store for new paint and tiles, looking completely gobsmacked at the idea that it'd be a great thing to do some major costly and life-disrupting alterations. Whether all this has something to do with the property boom, I don't know, but the interest in property might be a factor. But is it a chicken and egg question?
The responsibilty lies with Banks and Mortgage Companies lending money to people who were high risk. The Goverment must also take it's share of the blame for leaving interest rates far too low for far too long a period which lulled people into a false sense of security on mortgage repayments. In 1997 it was quite difficult to obtain a BTL mortgage,I know because I was always trying to get one but the terms and conditions were very strict which I could rarely meet the criteria and then by 2001 my Dog could have had as much money as it wanted on a paw-print with absolutely no background checks on financial ability they were giving it away to anybody and everybody. The results of this reckless money lending is now coming out and unless you have been living on the Dark Side of the Moon for the last 6 Months everyone must be aware of the sub prime mortgage fiasco with Northern Rock and other financial institutions and the consequences of irresponsible money lending to people who were very likely to default on their mortgage.
TV programs show mindless violence 24/7 but were not all out there mugging and killing are we? so, property shows on Telly responsible? I don't think so.
C4 Forums 
that must have been a few years back 
All Hail the mighty hamsters! 
