Bps and Buying Property

[Goweresque]

That's is my point too. I'm buying a new property - house, barns stables etc, I do not feel it can be justified outside of the vultures and crooks realms to then claim that or tell you to feck off if they find a higher bidder.

So if you own two divisible assets you would just sell them as one when the buyer wouldn't pay any extra for the freebie, while a 3rd party might pay quite handsomely for the freebie on it own? An owner attempting to maximise the return from the sale of his assets is not a vulture or crook. If you were selling your land, and a neighbouring householder asked you to sell them a small plot for their garden, and were happy to pay well above market value for it, would you be a crook or a vulture if you excluded that plot from the rest of the land and did a separate deal?

Splitting the land and the entitlements allows a greater pool of potential buyers to be found for both, because not all buyers of land want entitlements, and most people who want entitlements don't want to have to buy land as well, so the price of both is maximised. If you want both, bid for both. Its just business, not some moral scandal.

 

[Ukjay]

So you had some entitlements in the past?
But I assume as you didn’t claim they have been lost to the national reserve??

Yes, everything was included. And yes, as I didn't use the entitlements they would have gone back to the reserve, as I did not after talking to the relevant people, think it wise for me to go into the system fully, and I'm not someone who wants to play the roulette game. I also didn't put development clauses on the property either, unlike many who lse who does which again is for greed as they can't be arsed to do the hard work for planning, but hinder someone else who can.

Hence why I am struggling to see why so many who moan about cost of things and not being able to compete with cheaper imported goods, are then advocating dealing the entitlements in this manner when selling property is justified..

It simply shows me that many see it as a nice earner, when it really only serves to jack prices up down the line.

For me, if you do not use them on your land that the entitlements came with originally, they should go back, not kept to sell off to someone else in another part of the country whilst inflating prices simply for greed.

 

[Steevo]

It simply shows me that many see it as a nice earner, when it really only serves to jack prices up down the line.

It’s simply market forces - supply and demand.

If there was not demand, it would not make a difference.

Taking your comment on development clauses....I would agree it’s not helpful. However if there wasn’t the demand outstripping supply, it wouldn’t/couldn’t happen. If struggling to sell their property, people would see the value in making it more attractive to buyers by not being restrictive. The market currently though means discourages that because if every property has a clause, it makes no real difference. If someone bought a property without a clause....the first thing they would do when selling is add a clause.

Bottled water is profiteering - taking something of very low value and selling it for a high price....is it wrong to sell bottled water? If nobody bought it....they wouldn’t offer it for sale because there would be no money to be made.

 

[Ukjay]

So if you own two divisible assets you would just sell them as one when the buyer wouldn't pay any extra for the freebie, while a 3rd party might pay quite handsomely for the freebie on it own? An owner attempting to maximise the return from the sale of his assets is not a vulture or crook. If you were selling your land, and a neighbouring householder asked you to sell them a small plot for their garden, and were happy to pay well above market value for it, would you be a crook or a vulture if you excluded that plot from the rest of the land and did a separate deal?

Splitting the land and the entitlements allows a greater pool of potential buyers to be found for both, because not all buyers of land want entitlements, and most people who want entitlements don't want to have to buy land as well, so the price of both is maximised. If you want both, bid for both. Its just business, not some moral scandal.

Actually, you may find this strange - but I do just that. I have a figure in mind for something, advertise for said figure, and do not try and push higher.

Example 1. We had 5 full asking price offers on our property before the last and the agents advised to go sealed bid to get more money.
We declined that advice because a) it is simply greedy and b) it over inflates an already overpriced market even further.
They told we were mad because they could get us more money for the property, whereby our response was, yes, and get more commission for yourselves, plus run the risk of a sale falling through as the mortgage company will not lend the extra to the highest bidder..

Example 2. Our last property was a cash buyer, and again we have not placed any restrictions or clauses on said property as we are not like that.
I have left all cctv equipment, automatic drinkers in stables, all rubber matting etc, and we were told that we're mad, as you could charge extra.

We see no point in this, and as some on here will know, we give things away for free too if someone has a need, and some of the stuff I could easily sell for some decent money all added up.

I suppose it depends on the kind of people you are, but we try to treat people fair, and give something back - not take everything we can. Hence why I was asking about the entitlements shenanigans that I have come across whilst searching for our new property ?

 

[Ukjay]

It’s simply market forces - supply and demand.

If there was not demand, it would not make a difference.

Taking your comment on development clauses....I would agree it’s not helpful. However if there wasn’t the demand outstripping supply, it wouldn’t/couldn’t happen. If struggling to sell their property, people would see the value in making it more attractive to buyers by not being restrictive. The market currently though means discourages that because if every property has a clause, it makes no real difference. If someone bought a property without a clause....the first thing they would do when selling is add a clause.

Bottled water is profiteering - taking something of very low value and selling it for a high price....is it wrong to sell bottled water? If nobody bought it....they wouldn’t offer it for sale because there would be no money to be made.

Not everyone adds clauses ?

 

[Steevo]

Actually, you may find this strange - but I do just that. I have a figure in mind for something, advertise for said figure, and do not try and push higher.

Example 1. We had 5 full asking price offers on our property before the last and the agents advised to go sealed bid to get more money.
We declined that advice because a) it is simply greedy and b) it over inflates an already overpriced market even further.
They told we were mad because they could get us more money for the property, whereby our response was, yes, and get more commission for yourselves, plus run the risk of a sale falling through as the mortgage company will not lend the extra to the highest bidder..

Example 2. Our last property was a cash buyer, and again we have not placed any restrictions or clauses on said property as we are not like that.
I have left all cctv equipment, automatic drinkers in stables, all rubber matting etc, and we were told that we're mad, as you could charge extra.

We see no point in this, and as some on here will know, we give things away for free too if someone has a need, and some of the stuff I could easily sell for some decent money all added up.

I suppose it depends on the kind of people you are, but we try to treat people fair, and give something back - not take everything we can. Hence why I was asking about the entitlements shenanigans that I have come across whilst searching for our new property ?

Wow! I must say I admire that attitude.

 

[Steevo]

Not everyone adds clauses ?

Very true...!

I guess my point was that the next person in the line will likely add the clause if you did not. Hopefully, they are minded to do something cracking with the place....and pay that forward. As you say there are plenty out there who would buy the property, split it into smaller parts with "potential for...", whack a clause on and put it on the market for a quick buck.

 

[Ukjay]

Wow! I must say I admire that attitude.

Sadly, I have to admit that many find our view strange, but it is the way we are.
We have not come from super rich backgrounds and we appreciate what we have, to which we have worked bloody hard for our little piece.

If we can do something that can assist or help someone genuine out of a pickle, we try to do our best, but not at a cost to maximise our own bank balance.

The difficult part today is finding if the people are genuine and not feed the vultures more as we have found out the hard way. ?

 

[Ukjay]

Very true...!

I guess my point was that the next person in the line will likely add the clause if you did not. Hopefully, they are minded to do something cracking with the place....and pay that forward. As you say there are plenty out there who would buy the property, split it into smaller parts with "potential for...", whack a clause on and put it on the market for a quick buck.

Exactly.

We had several developers come round the farm to bid, and we told them all No.
Could have cost the sale, but it came good in the end.

I too hope the new family make the old place nice, as it was a lovely platform we left them. ?

 

[7610 super q]

As an aside, what are you intending to buy ? If it's a smallholding / hobby / equestrian holding ( I hope I'm not being condescending ) don't bother buying the entitlements ? On small places it's quite frankly more trouble than it's worth claiming them. Being able to do what you want with your own property without trying to accommodate silly rules & regs is priceless.

 

[Ukjay]

As an aside, what are you intending to buy ? If it's a smallholding / hobby / equestrian holding ( I hope I'm not being condescending ) don't bother buying the entitlements ? On small places it's quite frankly more trouble than it's worth claiming them. Being able to do what you want with your own property without trying to accommodate silly rules & regs is priceless.

Not condescending at all, genuine question / outlook.

We are looking for a larger property this time with more land, and some have this caveat attached hence my question.

It will obviously have an commercial equine part, but we are also looking to have some additional choices to do with the land.
So in essence, we do not want to be screwed over if I wanted to go that route ( if that makes sense).

Oh, and it is not part of a business model if that's what you are suggesting, more that I have the choice at the time with the property we finally decide upon.

 

[Goweresque]

Actually, you may find this strange - but I do just that. I have a figure in mind for something, advertise for said figure, and do not try and push higher.

Example 1. We had 5 full asking price offers on our property before the last and the agents advised to go sealed bid to get more money.
We declined that advice because a) it is simply greedy and b) it over inflates an already overpriced market even further.
They told we were mad because they could get us more money for the property, whereby our response was, yes, and get more commission for yourselves, plus run the risk of a sale falling through as the mortgage company will not lend the extra to the highest bidder..

Example 2. Our last property was a cash buyer, and again we have not placed any restrictions or clauses on said property as we are not like that.
I have left all cctv equipment, automatic drinkers in stables, all rubber matting etc, and we were told that we're mad, as you could charge extra.

We see no point in this, and as some on here will know, we give things away for free too if someone has a need, and some of the stuff I could easily sell for some decent money all added up.

I suppose it depends on the kind of people you are, but we try to treat people fair, and give something back - not take everything we can. Hence why I was asking about the entitlements shenanigans that I have come across whilst searching for our new property ?

Its an odd attitude I'd say yes, not least because while it is very generous to the purchaser, you may be being generous to someone who doesn't really deserve it. Far better IMO to maximise sale proceeds and then if you want to give money away do so in a manner that means the most deserving get helped. But your way is your choice and you're entitled to it. However equally it doesn't make you some sort of saint, and those who wish to operate in other ways vultures and crooks either.

 

[Ukjay]

Its an odd attitude I'd say yes, not least because while it is very generous to the purchaser, you may be being generous to someone who doesn't really deserve it. Far better IMO to maximise sale proceeds and then if you want to give money away do so in a manner that means the most deserving get helped. But your way is your choice and you're entitled to it. However equally it doesn't make you some sort of saint, and those who wish to operate in other ways vultures and crooks either.

See, simply because we do not want to screw the next person over and try to be fair - meets with the 'it doesn't make you a saint' crap.
I never said, nor implied I was (and I wouldn't). A question was raised to which I answered fully.. maybe wiser in future not too if people cannot accept there are some among us that are not trying to do you over.

I also not not stress on how someone can make money past my individual contributions, which is what is going on here.

I have sometimes struggled to fathom why, not wishing to rip people off appears so hard to accept, but I am coming to the conclusion from various interactions that it may be because we are so far down the 'it's mine' path that we have forgotten how not to be this way....

Ironically, all I have seen was an initial potentially viable system being raped for personal short term gain - as there is a knock on down the line.
Then we see some of the same people moan about the low costs that are gained from your products, their time is not valued etc.

Maybe people should reflect on these same over inflating activities that are being condoned to see what may be a contributory factor to this, as I'm not the only one who can read this.... Its an open forum for all to see and make decisions based on what they can see.

Just saying, but every action has an opposite reaction.... I will continue to try to balance my part as far as possible and not become the slave to avarice..

 

[Goweresque]

Ironically, all I have seen was an initial potentially viable system being raped for personal short term gain - as there is a knock on down the line.

The entire BPS system of land entitlements was precisely designed so that the entitlements could be bought and sold. It was an attempt to tie the value of subsidies to active farmers, be they tenants or owner occupiers, rather than landowners. The whole point of it was that a tenant could move from farm to farm and take his entitlements with him, and then when he retired, or downsized his business, he could sell those entitlements. And people starting up could buy entitlements as well. It wasn't the creation of financial market spivs in sharp suits, it was the creation of civil servants (whether in London or Brussels I couldn't say). Entitlements are created by the State and its up to the State if they can be bought and sold, the owners really don't have a say in it. Indeed they could be abolished tomorrow at the stroke of a pen and anyone who'd paid out money for them would lose it.

I have sometimes struggled to fathom why, not wishing to rip people off appears so hard to accept, but I am coming to the conclusion from various interactions that it may be because we are so far down the 'it's mine' path that we have forgotten how not to be this way....

Selling something you own for a fair price is not 'ripping people off'. You may be narked that you're shelling out a large wedge for some land and the seller isn't throwing the entitlements in for free, but as both the land and the entitlements belong to him (or her) they are under no moral obligation to give you something for nothing. It would be nice if they did, but calling them vultures and crooks because they won't give you something for nothing doesn't exactly paint you in a good light either.

 

[Ukjay]

The entire BPS system of land entitlements was precisely designed so that the entitlements could be bought and sold. It was an attempt to tie the value of subsidies to active farmers, be they tenants or owner occupiers, rather than landowners. The whole point of it was that a tenant could move from farm to farm and take his entitlements with him, and then when he retired, or downsized his business, he could sell those entitlements. And people starting up could buy entitlements as well. It wasn't the creation of financial market spivs in sharp suits, it was the creation of civil servants (whether in London or Brussels I couldn't say). Entitlements are created by the State and its up to the State if they can be bought and sold, the owners really don't have a say in it. Indeed they could be abolished tomorrow at the stroke of a pen and anyone who'd paid out money for them would lose it.



Selling something you own for a fair price is not 'ripping people off'. You may be narked that you're shelling out a large wedge for some land and the seller isn't throwing the entitlements in for free, but as both the land and the entitlements belong to him (or her) they are under no moral obligation to give you something for nothing. It would be nice if they did, but calling them vultures and crooks because they won't give you something for nothing doesn't exactly paint you in a good light either.

I want nothing for nothing - unlike many who run a business on free money, so I would say you're barking very much up the wrong tree there.

Of note, I do not think 16k per acre to include the entitlements is wanting anything for nothing, as we are not talking top quality land here... Or are you suggesting that is incorrect?

The whole system has turned in a corrupt circuit that adds far too much to the value whereby some are better able to afford the over inflated prices, although I would hypothesise some, maybe a lot are bought on financed lending as a result.

I will always accept a fair deal, but extortion which is what is now common for these is not a fair price when looking at the sums they are being bought at, so again your assumption of me is incorrect.

This foolishness serves nothing more than to escalate prices beyond the lay persons grasp, but you feel that is just and reasonable.
Maybe the best thing is to revoke the whole system and start again, who knows, but food for thought maybe.

 

[chaffcutter]

Only one thing determines the price or value of something....a deal between a willing seller and a keen buyer.

I would be interested to know how you decided who to sell to when you had several offers at the asking price, but did not go to the next step of ‘best and final offers’?

 

[multi power]

I got fuel in my car when I bought it, so maybe try another garage. ?

For me, when buying another house with land, I do not anticipate being extorted further to be able to utilise it as I should
Seems the vultures are getting worse..

That is simple, buy the land, but don't bother with buying the entitlements, if buying them is part of the deal just sell them on

 

[Ukjay]

I would be interested to know how you decided who to sell to when you had several offers at the asking price, but did not go to the next step of ‘best and final offers’?

Not sure I am following what relevance the selection was, but I'll play along out of curiosity ?

We simply asked the agent which of the bidders were in a procedable position, in that they had accepted an offer on their property, then went for the first bidders offer who was in that position.

 

[d williams]

I got fuel in my car when I bought it, so maybe try another garage. ?

For me, when buying another house with land, I do not anticipate being extorted further to be able to utilise it as I should
Seems the vultures are getting worse..

Look at it another way dose the land your buying have livestock on them ??
So do you think your entitled to those also??
It’s a asset to the farm that has a value so purchase or farm without them

 

[d williams]

All part of the big scam. Back in 2004 (ish) any farmer in farming and claiming subsidy got given entitlements of different amounts depending on which country They were in and the countries own scheme. England pretty much went straight to area payments where as Wales and Scotland went more historical on what had previously been claimed in previous 3 years.
Those claiming in the reference years got given entitlements, for arguments sake £30,000 worth. If you happen to set up farming in 2005 you wouldn't have had a reference period so weren't entitled to free entitlements and had to purchase them yourself.
Not sure on the position in England but In Wales entitlements were trading at 3x the face value in some situations so some one given £30,000 of entitlements could have sold for £90,000 yet the farmer starting up in 2005 wasn't deemed to be a farmer and wasn't entitled to any for free so had to purchase at market price. There were some new entrant entitlements available to some, but not all.

Not true there was a cut off in November 2005 to register for entitlements if you had no reference years you got allocated the average value of entitlement
In wales this was