Re: WRIGHT'S FOLLY - Dr. Martin Roberts

by Woofer 29.09.13 22:58

Unless it was just a piece of land in 2002 - then someone built a house on it.

by dentdelion 29.09.13 22:59

Perhaps that was the value of the site before the house was built?

(snap Woofer :) great minds etc .....)

by Guest 29.09.13 23:00

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Land Registry confirms it too.

http://houseprices.landregistry.gov.uk/price-paid-record/10880100/5+the+crescent+rothley+leicester+charnwood+Leicestershire

I wonder if it could have been just the site before the house was built.

I would say/think this was the price for the land. The houses may have been built individually in 2002, I expect owners purchased land and built to their spec.

by Rob Royston 29.09.13 23:02

Châtelaine wrote:Nr. 1 was valued GBP 319,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 482,000
Nr. 2 was valued GBP 299,950 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 3 was valued GBP 244,950 in 2002, sold for GBP 325,000, then for GBP 470,000
Nr. 4 was valued GBP 291,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 335,000, then for GBP 410,000
Nr. 5 was valued GBP 60,000in 2002, sold for GBP 459,950
Nr. 6 was valued GBP 309,500 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 7 was valued GBP 325,250 in 2002, not sold so far.

All of these data seem in line [with good profit in sales - then]. Only Nr. 5 is falling out of line ...

Unless it was "sold" to a planning official by the builder, or was just a building plot then.

by Woofer 29.09.13 23:17

candyfloss wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Land Registry confirms it too.

http://houseprices.landregistry.gov.uk/price-paid-record/10880100/5+the+crescent+rothley+leicester+charnwood+Leicestershire

I wonder if it could have been just the site before the house was built.
I would say/think this was the price for the land. The houses may have been built individually in 2002, I expect owners purchased land and built to their spec.

All the houses at the end of the cul-de-sac are the same style by the looks of their frontages. Maybe they all had the same architect.

by Guest 29.09.13 23:31

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Land Registry confirms it too.

http://houseprices.landregistry.gov.uk/price-paid-record/10880100/5+the+crescent+rothley+leicester+charnwood+Leicestershire

I wonder if it could have been just the site before the house was built.

***
And then it stand vacant for 4 years?
Possible.
But ...
IMO There's something "strange" there.
However: end of. Unless we find something with more beef on it.

by Woofer 29.09.13 23:35

Châtelaine wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Land Registry confirms it too.

http://houseprices.landregistry.gov.uk/price-paid-record/10880100/5+the+crescent+rothley+leicester+charnwood+Leicestershire

I wonder if it could have been just the site before the house was built.
***
And then it stand vacant for 4 years?

Wouldn`t the builder have lived in it himself for a few years then sold in 2006?

by Guest 29.09.13 23:43

Woofer wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Land Registry confirms it too.

http://houseprices.landregistry.gov.uk/price-paid-record/10880100/5+the+crescent+rothley+leicester+charnwood+Leicestershire

I wonder if it could have been just the site before the house was built.
***
And then it stand vacant for 4 years?
Wouldn`t the builder have lived in it himself for a few years then sold in 2006?

***
Possible.
it would explain that there's no evaluation before the sale early 2006. For a hefty sum, if I may say so.
I happen to live in a charming little château in France, which has cost me less big grin

ETA apart from bl**dy maintenance, of course ...

by ultimaThule 29.09.13 23:54

Returning to the theme of the folly of Wright's testimony which would appear to be a prime example of the wisdom of not opening mouth until brain is in gear:

"ID - What consequence did this have on the cCanns family life and in particular that relating to the twins?
MW Around the time of the negative e-mails and threats, which was when they tried to launch the campaign, we went away for the second anniversary with Kate and Gerry to a remote house in the countryside. Anniversaries and Christmases were never very good. But in 2009 it was horrible. When they arrived at the cottage, they heard through friends they had in Praia da Luz that the 10,000 posters they had distributed and put up in the Algarve had been ripped and torn. Their friends had called them on the phone to say it was awful and that there were some people who were saying that the child was dead.

The fact that people in Praia da Luz believed the conclusions of the book was terrible for them because they were already depressed"

The fact of the matter is that, long before the publication of Dr Amaral's book, the good people of Luz reached their own conclusions and Madeleine ~~propoganda~~ posters were being torn down and otherwise removed before the McCanns' were made arguidos in September 2007.

As for "they heard through friends they had in Praia da Luz that the 10,000 posters they had distributed and put up in the Algarve had been ripped and torn" would this be another batch of posters the McCanns arranged to be sent to a commercial distribution company in Portugal, not one of which they 'put up' on a wall/telegraph pole/lamp post/shop front or similar with their own ~~grubby mitts~~ fair hands?

by aiyoyo 30.09.13 7:45

candyfloss wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Land Registry confirms it too.

http://houseprices.landregistry.gov.uk/price-paid-record/10880100/5+the+crescent+rothley+leicester+charnwood+Leicestershire

I wonder if it could have been just the site before the house was built.
I would say/think this was the price for the land. The houses may have been built individually in 2002, I expect owners purchased land and built to their spec.

NOPE, dont think so!

That type of identical or uniform properties are typically built by a Developer and sold on blueprints before completion.
The rest of the properties surrounding No. 5 attest to the uniformity.
Uniform date of availability on th market and similar price range tally with collective built type of properties.

The one possible reason for undervalued property is if the bank forced sale it, or in rare case of haunted property or where there has been a murder in it rendering it undesirable. Since No. 5 is new property, it is unlikely to be any of those reasons.

One way to verify is to check out whether or not it was one of those collectively built property, is to check who the Developer was?

by aiyoyo 30.09.13 7:56

Châtelaine wrote:Nr. 1 was valued GBP 319,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 482,000
Nr. 2 was valued GBP 299,950 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 3 was valued GBP 244,950 in 2002, sold for GBP 325,000, then for GBP 470,000
Nr. 4 was valued GBP 291,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 335,000, then for GBP 410,000
Nr. 5 was valued GBP 60,000in 2002, sold for GBP 459,950
Nr. 6 was valued GBP 309,500 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 7 was valued GBP 325,250 in 2002, not sold so far.

All of these data seem in line [with good profit in sales - then]. Only Nr. 5 is falling out of line ...

Quite a few untaken properties - it seems one wants that kind of neighbours.
I am left wondering whether their immediate next two properties no. 6&7 were vacant because of them, or not sold since 2002? More than a decade is hell of a long time for them to be on the market.
Immediate few on the other side shows change of hands, again would it be for same reason ie moved out because of undesirable type of neighbours.

Is it such a bad estate one wonders or other reason?

by lj 30.09.13 14:34

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Land Registry confirms it too.

http://houseprices.landregistry.gov.uk/price-paid-record/10880100/5+the+crescent+rothley+leicester+charnwood+Leicestershire

I wonder if it could have been just the site before the house was built.

That was my thought too. There is no way the tax office would let anyone get away with such a profit.

by Woofer 30.09.13 14:37

aiyoyo wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Nr. 1 was valued GBP 319,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 482,000
Nr. 2 was valued GBP 299,950 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 3 was valued GBP 244,950 in 2002, sold for GBP 325,000, then for GBP 470,000
Nr. 4 was valued GBP 291,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 335,000, then for GBP 410,000
Nr. 5 was valued GBP 60,000in 2002, sold for GBP 459,950
Nr. 6 was valued GBP 309,500 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 7 was valued GBP 325,250 in 2002, not sold so far.

All of these data seem in line [with good profit in sales - then]. Only Nr. 5 is falling out of line ...
Quite a few untaken properties - it seems one wants that kind of neighbours.
I am left wondering whether their immediate next two properties no. 6&7 were vacant because of them, or not sold since 2002? More than a decade is hell of a long time for them to be on the market.
Immediate few on the other side shows change of hands, again would it be for same reason ie moved out because of undesirable type of neighbours.

Is it such a bad estate one wonders or other reason?

There are people in those houses. Probably bought them as soon as they were built in 2002 and have not moved since.

by gbwales 30.09.13 15:07

aiyoyo wrote:
Is it such a bad estate one wonders or other reason?

You'd certainly have some pretty undesirable neighbours big grin

by ultimaThule 30.09.13 15:35

Woofer wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Nr. 1 was valued GBP 319,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 482,000
Nr. 2 was valued GBP 299,950 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 3 was valued GBP 244,950 in 2002, sold for GBP 325,000, then for GBP 470,000
Nr. 4 was valued GBP 291,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 335,000, then for GBP 410,000
Nr. 5 was valued GBP 60,000in 2002, sold for GBP 459,950
Nr. 6 was valued GBP 309,500 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 7 was valued GBP 325,250 in 2002, not sold so far.

All of these data seem in line [with good profit in sales - then]. Only Nr. 5 is falling out of line ...
Quite a few untaken properties - it seems one wants that kind of neighbours.
I am left wondering whether their immediate next two properties no. 6&7 were vacant because of them, or not sold since 2002? More than a decade is hell of a long time for them to be on the market.
Immediate few on the other side shows change of hands, again would it be for same reason ie moved out because of undesirable type of neighbours.

Is it such a bad estate one wonders or other reason?
There are people in those houses. Probably bought them as soon as they were built in 2002 and have not moved since.

1 The Crescent, Rothley, Leicester, Charnwood, Leicestershire, LE7 7RW
Detached
£482,000
25 Jun 08
1 The Crescent, Rothley, Leicester, Charnwood, Leicestershire, LE7 7RW
Detached
£400,000
28 Jul 06

Detached
£390,000
01 Oct 04
1 The Crescent, Rothley, Leicester, Charnwood, Leicestershire, LE7 7RW
Detached
£319,500
21 Jun 02

2 The Crescent, Rothley, Leicester, Charnwood, Leicestershire, LE7 7RW
Detached
£299,950
30 Jul 02

3 The Crescent, Rothley, Leicester, Charnwood, Leicestershire, LE7 7RW
Detached
£244,950
25 Jun 02
3 The Crescent, Rothley, Leicester, Charnwood, Leicestershire, LE7 7RW
Detached
£325,000
27 Feb 04
3 The Crescent, Rothley, Leicester, Charnwood, Leicestershire, LE7 7RW
Detached
£470,000
18 Jan 08
4 The Crescent, Rothley, Leicester, Charnwood, Leicestershire, LE7 7RW
Detached
£410,000
27 Oct 06
4 The Crescent, Rothley, Leicester, Charnwood, Leicestershire, LE7 7RW
Detached
£380,000
19 Feb 10
4 The Crescent, Rothley, Leicester, Charnwood, Leicestershire, LE7 7RW
Detached
£291,500
30 Sep 02
4 The Crescent, Rothley, Leicester, Charnwood, Leicestershire, LE7 7RW
Detached
£335,000
26 Mar 04
5 The Crescent, Rothley, Leicester, Charnwood, Leicestershire, LE7 7RW
Detached
£60,000
28 Mar 02
5 The Crescent, Rothley, Leicester, Charnwood, Leicestershire, LE7 7RW
Detached
£459,950
20 Jan 06
6 The Crescent, Rothley, Leicester, Charnwood, Leicestershire, LE7 7RW
Detached
£309,500
31 May 02
7 The Crescent, Rothley, Leicester, Charnwood, Leicestershire, LE7 7RW
Detached
£325,250
25 Jul 02

Other than half of the neighbours having elected to move since the Mcanns' rise to ~~notoriety~~ fame, I see nothing odd at all in the above Land Registry records.

by Guest 30.09.13 15:38

Châtelaine wrote:Nr. 1 was valued GBP 319,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 482,000
Nr. 2 was valued GBP 299,950 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 3 was valued GBP 244,950 in 2002, sold for GBP 325,000, then for GBP 470,000
Nr. 4 was valued GBP 291,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 335,000, then for GBP 410,000
Nr. 5 was valued GBP 60,000in 2002, sold for GBP 459,950
Nr. 6 was valued GBP 309,500 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 7 was valued GBP 325,250 in 2002, not sold so far.

All of these data seem in line [with good profit in sales - then]. Only Nr. 5 is falling out of line ...

If the purchaser of no. 5 applied for a mortgage while the property was just a plot of land, the surveyor would have given the building society or bank a current value i.e. the value of the land and an estimated value for the completed house.

The other houses look like they had already been built when they were sold.

There's nothing unusual about this. It's just a coincidence.

by Monty Heck 30.09.13 15:39

ultimaThule wrote:Returning to the theme of the folly of Wright's testimony which would appear to be a prime example of the wisdom of not opening mouth until brain is in gear:

"ID - What consequence did this have on the cCanns family life and in particular that relating to the twins?
MW Around the time of the negative e-mails and threats, which was when they tried to launch the campaign, we went away for the second anniversary with Kate and Gerry to a remote house in the countryside. Anniversaries and Christmases were never very good. But in 2009 it was horrible. When they arrived at the cottage, they heard through friends they had in Praia da Luz that the 10,000 posters they had distributed and put up in the Algarve had been ripped and torn. Their friends had called them on the phone to say it was awful and that there were some people who were saying that the child was dead.

The fact that people in Praia da Luz believed the conclusions of the book was terrible for them because they were already depressed"

The fact of the matter is that, long before the publication of Dr Amaral's book, the good people of Luz reached their own conclusions and Madeleine ~~propoganda~~ posters were being torn down and otherwise removed before the McCanns' were made arguidos in September 2007.

As for "they heard through friends they had in Praia da Luz that the 10,000 posters they had distributed and put up in the Algarve had been ripped and torn" would this be another batch of posters the McCanns arranged to be sent to a commercial distribution company in Portugal, not one of which they 'put up' on a wall/telegraph pole/lamp post/shop front or similar with their own ~~grubby mitts~~ fair hands?

By summer 2008 people in PDL seemed much more apathetic towards anything McCann related. The mood seemed to be that they had done whatever they possibly could and had given support even though many had misgivings about the McCs conduct from the start. People were saying they hoped or prayed M would be found alive but unfortunately the greater likelihood was that she was unfortunately dead. Attempting to "launch" a campaign in those circumstances, particularly without any events, personal appearances, appeals or calls to action direct from the parents/family was simply very short sighted and bound to fall flat. All charities who campaign find themselves up against sympathy burnout, therefore have to refresh their messages and renew approaches constantly, no matter how worthy the cause. But of course the fund is not a charity, run by people without the professionalism to evaluate the impact (or failure) of a campaign in anything approaching an unbiased way, and putting up posters, even 10,000, does not a campaign make.

Attempting to link this failure with the few people in PDL who would have read GAs book is simply ridiculous. The vast majority of their support in the village was the ex pat community in PDL. People who can only order a drink or ask for a menu or say good day are not likely to be reading any book in Portuguese therefore the claim that it was the belief of some vague, unamed "people in PDL" (and only there, nowhere else is mentioned) that M was dead, and that this belief came about due to the conclusions of GA's book is arrant nonsense. IMO.

by gbwales 30.09.13 15:47

They seem to have an set themselves an impossible task in any way *quantifying* the damage done to the search, given that the "search" itself is difficult to pin down or quantify anyway.

And I reckon they'd pretty much exhausted any Portuguese goodwill (let alone sympathy outside of Portugal) before they even left.

by Newintown 30.09.13 15:49

Woofer wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Nr. 1 was valued GBP 319,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 482,000
Nr. 2 was valued GBP 299,950 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 3 was valued GBP 244,950 in 2002, sold for GBP 325,000, then for GBP 470,000
Nr. 4 was valued GBP 291,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 335,000, then for GBP 410,000
Nr. 5 was valued GBP 60,000in 2002, sold for GBP 459,950
Nr. 6 was valued GBP 309,500 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 7 was valued GBP 325,250 in 2002, not sold so far.

All of these data seem in line [with good profit in sales - then]. Only Nr. 5 is falling out of line ...
Quite a few untaken properties - it seems one wants that kind of neighbours.
I am left wondering whether their immediate next two properties no. 6&7 were vacant because of them, or not sold since 2002? More than a decade is hell of a long time for them to be on the market.
Immediate few on the other side shows change of hands, again would it be for same reason ie moved out because of undesirable type of neighbours.

Is it such a bad estate one wonders or other reason?
There are people in those houses. Probably bought them as soon as they were built in 2002 and have not moved since.

Isn't one of the McCanns' friends/relatives a property developer, he built a huge house in Yorkshire I think it was, it's on another thread in this forum, but didn't getting proper planning permission for it. No doubt one of our intrepid researchers will know where to find the information.

Could he have developed the site that the McCanns house is on and they got a special deal? Just my opinion of course.

by Woofer 30.09.13 16:04

Newintown - you`re thinking of Ed Smethurst I believe. The story goes that he was Brian Kennedy (windows man) solicitor and came into their clique along with BK. Yes, he did build a house somewhere without the relevent permissions - ghastly looking place though IMO.

by Praiaaa 30.09.13 16:09

Nice location, convenient for 3 golf courses, but 400k?? bit steep for 2006.

by Woofer 30.09.13 16:12

Praiaaa wrote:Nice location, convenient for 3 golf courses, but 400k?? bit steep for 2006.

Actually £460,000 ... wonder how much mortgage they needed.

by aiyoyo 30.09.13 16:14

Woofer wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Nr. 1 was valued GBP 319,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 482,000
Nr. 2 was valued GBP 299,950 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 3 was valued GBP 244,950 in 2002, sold for GBP 325,000, then for GBP 470,000
Nr. 4 was valued GBP 291,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 335,000, then for GBP 410,000
Nr. 5 was valued GBP 60,000in 2002, sold for GBP 459,950
Nr. 6 was valued GBP 309,500 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 7 was valued GBP 325,250 in 2002, not sold so far.

All of these data seem in line [with good profit in sales - then]. Only Nr. 5 is falling out of line ...
Quite a few untaken properties - it seems no one wants that kind of neighbours.
I am left wondering whether their immediate next two properties no. 6&7 were vacant because of them, or not sold since 2002? More than a decade is hell of a long time for them to be on the market.
Immediate few on the other side shows change of hands, again would it be for same reason ie moved out because of undesirable type of neighbours.

Is it such a bad estate one wonders or other reason?
There are people in those houses. Probably bought them as soon as they were built in 2002 and have not moved since.

But they are marked as still unsold !

by Woofer 30.09.13 16:26

aiyoyo wrote:
Woofer wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Nr. 1 was valued GBP 319,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 482,000
Nr. 2 was valued GBP 299,950 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 3 was valued GBP 244,950 in 2002, sold for GBP 325,000, then for GBP 470,000
Nr. 4 was valued GBP 291,500 in 2002, sold for GBP 335,000, then for GBP 410,000
Nr. 5 was valued GBP 60,000in 2002, sold for GBP 459,950
Nr. 6 was valued GBP 309,500 in 2002, not sold so far
Nr. 7 was valued GBP 325,250 in 2002, not sold so far.

All of these data seem in line [with good profit in sales - then]. Only Nr. 5 is falling out of line ...
Quite a few untaken properties - it seems no one wants that kind of neighbours.
I am left wondering whether their immediate next two properties no. 6&7 were vacant because of them, or not sold since 2002? More than a decade is hell of a long time for them to be on the market.
Immediate few on the other side shows change of hands, again would it be for same reason ie moved out because of undesirable type of neighbours.

Is it such a bad estate one wonders or other reason?
There are people in those houses. Probably bought them as soon as they were built in 2002 and have not moved since.
But they are marked as still unsold !

I think that means not sold since they were bought in 2002. If you look at those houses, they seem to be lived in - all got curtains at the windows and cars in the drive.
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=5+the+crescent+rothley&ie=UTF-8&ei=aZhJUqP6MKS34ATC-4GwDw&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAg

by Guest 30.09.13 22:41

It indeed means that they haven't been sold since they were bought/acquired originally and are still occupied by the first owners.

The only one standing out is Nr. 5. I do appreciate, that it could mean the price of the lot was GBP 60,000 and the price of the house being constructed wasn't listed [ strange, though, as all lots must have been acquired and then houses must have been constructed, but, yeah...?] and four years later it sold at GBP 460,000. IMO that's still an outrageous price of a [IMO] rather middle-class/no taste [don't shoot me down!] house in a remote region ... And a hefty burden on the monthly income to pay the mortgage.

Log in for more topics