More than half of homeowners put off moving by cost
More than half of homeowners who have considered moving in the past year have paused their plans due to the high costs involved, research from Santander has revealed.
Some 57 per cent have made the choice to stay put, while 31 per cent decided to renovate their homes instead of moving to avoid an onslaught of stamp duty, solicitor and estate agent costs.
Homeowners in Wales had the highest home improvement rate – with 6.43 planning applications submitted for every 1,000 homes last year.
Scotland follows in second place with 5.94 planning applications per 1,000 homes.
Single storey rear extensions, single storey side extensions and loft conversions are popular in these areas, as people choose to upgrade their homes instead of moving.
Homeowners in Wales and Scotland also plan to spend an average of £11,000 making their upgrades this year. But applications for home office projects have taken a dive since the pandemic, as employees return to their workplaces. They've plummeted by 55 per cent between 2021 and 2024 in Scotland and 27 per cent in Wales.
All areas of England had less than 1 planning application submitted per 1,000 homes in 2024.
The North West had the lowest number of home improvements – with 0.2 applications submitted for every 1,000 homes. At the opposite end of the country, the South East had just 0.23 for every 1,000.
David Morris, head of homes at Santander, says: 'Given the projected surge in house prices in areas such as Scotland, as well as the cost of moving increasing significantly in recent years, it's not surprising that these homeowners are investing in renovations to add value to their properties.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
38 minutes ago
- The Independent
HMRC failure to notify MPs sooner about £47m phishing scam ‘unacceptable'
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has been warned by a committee of MPs that its failure to report details of a breach affecting around 100,000 taxpayers is 'unacceptable'. The Treasury Committee said it was only alerted to the information when a notification was published on the HMRC website on the same day as a live session. On June 4, it emerged that HMRC had lost £47 million after a phishing scam breached tens of thousands of tax accounts. Senior civil servants at HMRC told the Treasury Committee that 100,000 people have been contacted, or are in the process of being contacted, after their accounts were locked down in what they said was an 'organised crime' incident which started last year. On Tuesday, the committee published a letter from the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) stipulating that it had not discussed the phishing incident with HMRC and was not aware of it prior to the hearing on June 4. The committee also published a letter sent via email from its chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier to John-Paul Marks, chief executive, HMRC. The letter said: 'I am alarmed that it was never deemed necessary to inform Parliament about an issue which affected such a vast number of taxpayers and led to the loss of £47 million of public money. 'To discover this information during a session from press reports and without adequate time for the committee to review the information in detail is unacceptable.' The letter said the committee is seeking responses from HMRC as to 'why was Parliament not notified earlier about the loss of £47 million of taxpayers' money, whether through a written ministerial statement and/or public or confidential letters to the Treasury Committee and the Public Accounts Committee?' The committee is also seeking responses over why the update was published on the day of the committee hearing on the work of HMRC and who else in Government was told about the incident and when. It also wants to receive a timeline of how the incident unfolded and find out what measures HMRC has put in place to ensure that such incidents do not happen in future. The letter asked for a reply by June 24 2025. Meanwhile, the letter from Glenn Collins, head of technical and strategic engagement, ACCA, to Dame Meg, dated June 5, said: 'While we regularly engage with HMRC, including earlier in the year about issues relating to agent account access, we have not received any communication from HMRC on the issue of taxpayer account breaches until yesterday. 'We have highlighted to HMRC our frustration that HMRC has not been transparent or timely in its communication over this important issue.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
This £5k Brighton parking space is an auction bargain, but is it a good investment?
However, the point I want to draw your attention to is: the car parking space is leasehold, with approximately 63 years unexpired. As the sale is by an executor, I'm presuming the previous owner has died, but that this parking space was also at one stage likely tied to a flat in the building. As parking spaces don't carry the same rights of renewal as flats do, there's no statutory obligation for the freeholder to renew the lease – although, as the auctioneer replied: 'In practice, why wouldn't they?' Other people will see the same potential you do Billy Hart's Quay, Barton Road, Plymouth is a completely different find, and I have to be honest, if you're local or into boating, this is a gem of a lot. This is a quayside plot measuring 0.142 acres (6,186 sq ft) with direct vehicular and waterside access. The auctioneers have said it has development potential and, given the amount of residential development around and the picturesque setting, I wouldn't put it past some entrepreneurial bidder to come up with a novel scheme. Besides the residential angle, there's also a commercial opportunity for this quay that was constructed by American troops preparing for the D-Day landings. With hardstanding scrubland and access to Hooe Lake, and onward to Plymouth Sound, the English Channel and beyond, this presents several options for potential commercial operators, such as water sports hire, secure boat storage and motorhomes. The auction details also say there could be opportunity to acquire the adjacent slipway and foreshore by separate negotiation. The watch point on this: I think it's priced at a 'come buy me price'. The guide at £20,000-25,000 will really tempt people who are looking for lifestyle and commercial opportunities. But I think they'll be sorely disappointed in bagging a bargain – I reckon an 'armada' of buyers will be bidding for this, so I expect it to go way over guide. The importance of asking questions My third choice is this mid-terrace house located on St Johns Square, Stoke-on-Trent, guided at £23,000. The reason I selected this is because at first glance this looks like a pub. But then I went on Google maps and saw it was a closed barbers, with the upper floors boarded up and in a sorry state of repair. Understandably, I got confused and asked the auctioneers: 'So where is this house?' They replied: 'It is actually to the rear of the building.' Now, this is an important lesson in buying at auction – you always need to check the legals. As they are not yet available, the auctioneers don't have the title plan, but you can't always go off a photograph and think that's what you're buying. In a bid to find out more (I always say you have to be a detective when buying at auction), I tracked down the EPC (which expired in 2020), and I have learnt the property is a mid-terrace house with 54 sqm (581 sq ft), and it is rated a 'G'. This then comes with a big explanation mark and the accompanying text: 'You may not be able to let this property.' This is all useful information, should you be interested in this lot. However, the main reason I chose this property as a watch point was to highlight that it is being sold by the mortgagees (not in possession). This means the auctioneers will not be conducting viewings and, as yet, have not inspected the property. The emphasis on 'mortgages (not in possession)' is important because it means that the former owners of the property may still be living there. If you are bidding, you need to be aware of this. Also, the fact no viewings will be carried out makes this an incredibly risky buy, as you will not be able to find out what works need doing. The best-case scenario, in my opinion, would be to budget for a full back to brick renovation (and include a new roof) if you don't want to run out of funds. As auction lots go, this is one where you will be relying fully on the legal pack and your own due diligence to decide if the risk is worth the reward.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Nephews locked in court battle over dementia-stricken aunt's £400k estate
Two nephews are locked in a £400,000 fight over the fortune of a widow, who disinherited one side of her family after they suggested she go into a care home. Doreen Stock, who did not have any children, died in 2021 aged 86. She left her entire estate to her nephew, Simon Stock, and his wife Catherine, who lived close to her south London home. Mr Stock claimed he had been like a son to Doreen – but the will is now under challenge in court after Doreen's great-nephew, 39-year-old Ben Chiswick, launched a bid to inherit it himself. Ben, a propulsion engineer who is based in Michigan, US, had been due to inherit her fortune under a previous will written in 1986 when he was a baby, but was dramatically disinherited by his great-aunt a year before her death after his parents suggested Doreen spend time in a care home. He is fighting to reinstate the previous will, claiming Doreen, who he says was a 'fixture in his childhood', was too stricken by dementia to properly understand what she was doing when she changed her wishes. However, the Stocks are fighting the case, claiming Ben – who has lived in the US since 2017 – had no "meaningful relationship" with Doreen beyond his early years. Simon, meanwhile, had been 'the nearest thing to a son she had', they said. Sitting at Central London County Court, Judge Jane Evans-Gordon heard that "independent" and occasionally "stubborn" Doreen had a deep emotional attachment to her home in Charminster Road, Mottingham, having shared it with her husband Samuel until his death in 2001. Doreen's first will, made in 1986, ultimately left her estate to Ben, the son of her niece Patricia Chiswick and husband Brent. The estate principally contains the Mottingham house, which is valued online at about £400,000. The court heard Doreen had had a good relationship with the Chiswicks, who helped her with her shopping and visited her regularly. She even made a lasting power of attorney in their favour, but before she died she revoked the document and changed her will, leaving everything to a nephew on her husband's side: tax advisor Simon Stock and his wife Catherine. Challenging the will, Ben Chiswick claims that his great-aunt's dementia in her final years means there is serious doubt whether she had the necessary capacity to make the changes. He said the fact there was no discussion with his side of the family about the new will suggested "something not right" about her change of mind. "Doreen and I had a really happy relationship and she understood that leaving her estate to me would make a massive difference to my life," he said in his evidence. Barrister James McKean, for Simon and Catherine, told the court that Doreen had also been close to Simon, contributing to his school fees as a child. Although she previously had a close relationship with Ben's parents, that was ruined when they suggested she go into a care home in 2019, the court heard. To make matters worse, Patricia had then arranged for a "capacity assessment" for her aunt, which the barrister said led to Doreen fearing her independence was being threatened and ultimately changing her will. There had been "building resentment" with the way her power of attorney was being administered, which "finally boiled over in the summer of 2019 when the Chiswicks made an ill-judged – though perhaps well-intentioned – suggestion to Doreen that she spend a period in residential care'. 'Doreen was, by all accounts, jealously independent. It is little wonder that she found the proposition to be alarming and offensive," the barrister said. 'No doubt Doreen was worried about the prospect of going into a home, then was asked to undergo the capacity assessment, and put two and two together." Within weeks of the assessment, which resulted in a report stating she "lacked capacity", she had begun steps to revoke the power of attorney and make a new will in Simon and Catherine's favour, he told the judge. Quizzing Patricia Chiswick in the witness box, he added: "Doreen loved her home and it had been her and Samuel's home before his death. There was a deep emotional connection to that property. "Saying to Doreen that she should leave that property and spend some time in a care home was offensive to her, wasn't it? "From Doreen's perspective, this must have looked a real threat to her independence." But Patricia denied upsetting the pensioner, insisting that the plan was only ever for a short break in a care home while she and her husband went on holiday. "It was simply a suggestion because we don't usually go away for three weeks at a time, and I think she had been quite unwell and her health was deteriorating in general," she said. "I was concerned about leaving her and I thought it would be quite nice if she could go somewhere where she could be looked after while we were away. "It was absolutely stressed that it was for three weeks. There was no suggestion she was going to stay there indefinitely." The Chiswicks did not visit Doreen again between the capacity assessment in 2019 and her death in May 2021. For Patricia's son Ben, who is the claimant in the case, barrister Simon Lane said that, at the time she made the new will, she was 'vulnerable and was behaving out of character'. The 2019 assessment conducted after the suggestion of a care home move had resulted in an expert's finding that she "lacked capacity", he said. But Mr McKean said the assessment was deficient, with Doreen answering with "prickly hostility" when she was quizzed about things that made no sense to her, such as a fire which never actually happened. Other assessments around the same time had resulted in findings that she did have capacity, although she was suffering with "mild" dementia, he said. "Doreen may have had some memory problems, but capacity and memory are different beasts," he said. "The court will struggle to find any evidence of impaired cognition or reasoning. On the contrary, Doreen's behaviour, values and reasoning were consistent and plausible at all times." He said there was reason for her to decide to change her will, the last being made more than 30 years previously, and that by then Ben – living and working on the other side of the Atlantic – would have been "far from her mind as a beneficiary". He had not seen her again or even spoken on the phone after moving to the US, while most of the evidence of their relationship came from when he was a child. On the other hand, Simon and Catherine had been able to visit her regularly, living not far from her in Eltham, south London, he said. "The court can be surprised neither by the making of the disputed will, nor by Doreen's choice of beneficiaries," he added. The judge is expected to give her ruling on the case at a later date.
