New house or second hand?

Thrifty tips, ideas, news & experiences on anything around the home to shopping to re-cycling etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Mo
Legendary Laner
Posts: 15368
Joined: 30 Apr 2007, 09:39
Location: Cheshire (nr Chester)

New house or second hand?

Post by Mo »

What are people's experiences of buying new houses (compared with second hand)
I seem to remember that it used to be said that nearly new were worth more, as someone else had ironed out the problem.

Someone I know is looking at an Elan home. I've never heard of them. Any feedback
Dance caller. http://mo-dance-caller.blogspot.co.uk/p/what-i-do.html
Sunny Clucker enjoyed Folk music and song in mid-Cheshire
User avatar
wendy
Moderator
Posts: 29794
Joined: 30 Apr 2007, 14:13
Location: Hertfordshire
Contact:

Re: New house or second hand?

Post by wendy »

I have always had older houses, so no help.
I feel they have a bit more character.
Good Luck
http://www.busheyk9.co.uk

If you can't be a good example........
you will just have to be a horrible warning
User avatar
KathJ
Longlasting Laner
Posts: 934
Joined: 12 Sep 2012, 13:13
Gender: Female
Location: Shropshire

Re: New house or second hand?

Post by KathJ »

It all depends what you're looking for in a home I think. Our last house was a brand new Barratt Home and to be honest I'd never buy another new house >dum<
On the plus side it's all a blank canvas and all the fixtures and fittings are new but on the other hand are they the thing's you'd choose yourself or would you end up replacing everything anyway a few years down the line? Although things were new they weren't always of a very good quality and you had to be very careful hanging pictures as you were only going into plasterboard.
The other down side for us was that although when we bought the house we were on the edge of the estate and it was really quiet within a few years the estate almost tripled and we were right in the middle of a very large estate which we knew would happen eventually but wasn't for us in the end.
Kath xx

Mum to my beautiful girls Lucy, Holly, Rosie, Hettie, Polly, Ruby, Lily, Penny, Gracie, Maisie, Molly, Evie and my gorgeous boy Toby

RIP my beautiful Ranger, Roxy, Bluebelle, Poppy, Speckle, Daisy and Honey xxxx
User avatar
Spreckly
Legendary Laner
Posts: 5826
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 14:21

Re: New house or second hand?

Post by Spreckly »

I lived in a Taylor Woodrow maisonette, and a Taylor Woodrow house. The former was brand new, the second had one previous owner. In both places, cracks had to be filled in, I was a dab hand with polyfilla, and a damp cloth. One set of cracks near the ceiling had newspaper stuffed in them! When we bought our two hundred year old cottage, our bay windows were still going strong (only just), when the Barratt homes on the new estate were requiring replacements, and doors to be re-hung.

I do prefer an older home, one house was a hundred years old , and our current (and I hope final home) was built in the 1930's. The older properties do have character, but often electric re-wiring is necessary, and replacement of windows, doors, etc sometimes on the "to do" list.

I have not heard of Elan homes either.
User avatar
Mo
Legendary Laner
Posts: 15368
Joined: 30 Apr 2007, 09:39
Location: Cheshire (nr Chester)

Re: New house or second hand?

Post by Mo »

I think you are all reinforcing my impressions, not that it's my choice to make.
Dance caller. http://mo-dance-caller.blogspot.co.uk/p/what-i-do.html
Sunny Clucker enjoyed Folk music and song in mid-Cheshire
User avatar
lancashire lass
Legendary Laner
Posts: 6528
Joined: 28 Jun 2007, 15:17

Re: New house or second hand?

Post by lancashire lass »

On the one hand, new houses should be better insulated with modern materials as that is what the objectives of "being green" and reducing the carbon footprint, but my impression of new houses is that rooms are ridiculously small and stairwells are narrow (how do some people manage to move their furniture upstairs especially beds?), and gardens are postage stamp size (bearing in mind also that most new properties are supposed to be built on brownfield sites first - depends on what was on there before I suppose) and despite the uproar of learning houses were being built on flood plains a few years ago, the practice still goes on if "flood defences" are in place (which recently we have learned, do not always work ...) Also, I've noticed that developers cram in as many houses as they can within a small area - I personally would find it stressful to have neighbours in close proximity to my home.

As for older houses - well, they've stood the test of time (if there's going to be subsidence, it should be evident), but more often than not, need other expensive repairs and replacements besides rewiring and windows. A new roof is expensive but worth it for peace of mind if the other is well aged (some materials like clay tiles crumble from heat and cold stress/ice over time), also insulation especially roof space and wall cavities. And then there's damp-proofing and heating (boiler) to look out for - the older the house, the more problems.

Personally, I'd go for a older house - the 1930s houses seem to be much more solid and have character, whereas post-WW2 houses don't seem that well made and look like boxes. Houses built over 100 years ago have had to have bathrooms and toilets fitted into one of the bedrooms which can make them look odd (well, certainly the ones I've seen in terraced houses)
Post Reply