Statement from McCarthy & Stone
The majority of properties managed by McCarthy & Stone have increased in value when resold (based on data relating to managed properties resold in 2016 to-date) and historical data suggests around a third of all our properties outperform their local market.
In addition, our newer properties are better-placed to retain value as a result of the improvements we have made, such as setting up our own management services team, providing more internal space, removing exit fees, introducing 999 year leases, and increasing car parking. We expect to see continued improvements to resale prices in the future because of these changes.
Background information
As is common in the housebuilding sector, we use various incentives to support people with the moving process.
This includes providing new carpets and curtains, paying moving costs such as stamp duty and legal fees as well as using part exchange.
For instance, of the apartments quoted in your article at Risingholme Court, incentives averaged £27,000 per unit, or c12% of their original sale value. These benefits go to the original purchaser and need to be considered when looking at the value of the original sale to the customer.
Obviously the values of these incentives are not there on resale. In addition, and again as is common in the new build sector, it is common for new housing to be sold at a premium, and this is estimated to be around 10-15% of existing properties of a similar type. It is the benefit associated with being the first person to own the property, and is experienced in other sectors such as buying a new car.
The value of retirement housing is also more than simply financial; it is about helping our customers to live healthier, happier and longer lives. Our customers recognise that they are buying into a lifestyle based around security, companionship and friendship, as well as access to many shared facilities and services, including our on-site support teams. This is why we have received the full Five Star rating for customer satisfaction from the HBF [House Builders’ Federation] for the eleventh consecutive year – making us the only UK housebuilder, of any size or type, to achieve this accolade.
The value of our properties is therefore found in how they help those in later life rather than the simple square footage of an apartment. Our properties provide an excellent alternative to struggling on in large unsuitable family-sized properties that are difficult to maintain, expensive to heat and can be detrimental to well-being in later life. The only other choice can be moving to a care home, which can be hugely expensive and is often seen as a last resort.
In the last five years, we have focused on ways to further improve our developments to benefit our homeowners. This includes increasing space standards as well as providing better designs, more en-suites, underfloor heating, walk-in wardrobes, level-access showers and enhanced kitchens, as well as increasing the number of parking spaces.
We have also improved our leases and how we deliver our services.
We have removed exit fees and provide our services at cost with no commission.
In 2015, we lengthened the terms of our new leases from 125 years to 999 years. We established our own in-house management companies in 2010 to manage all new schemes, which has helped maintain the quality of our developments and ensured they are well looked after. This has also avoided the need to employ third parties and allowed us to provide a holistic service and single point of contact for our customers from the point of sale.
The marketing of retirement apartments can be complicated given the specialist nature of the properties, and we do recognise that prices can fall. In our experience, local estate agencies are not always able to fully demonstrate the benefits of the retirement living lifestyle to new purchasers in the way we do and are therefore not always able to price or market them appropriately.
It is a unique form of housing that requires a level of expertise to explain the full benefits and characteristics of the development, as well as a consistent focus. For instance, up to 35% of our floorspace in each development is provided as shared and communal facilities, such as lounges, restaurants, laundries and guest suites, and this forms part of the value of the original sale to the customer. However, we know that high street estate agents often fail to show people these facilities upon resale. Our apartments meet a very real need for better housing for our ageing population and provide an attractive and enjoyable option for many people, and this needs to be communicated during the resale process.
To help address this challenge, we have established a relationship with Retirementmove, a specialist in retirement property resales. Retirementmove is able to provide a proactive estate agency service and has an expert team in place that fully understands this type of accommodation. Retirementmove has a solid understanding of the benefits associated with our apartments and our customers’ lifestyle, and is well-placed to offer a good service to our homeowners. We also provide information about this service in our new sales suites and developments so customers know they are supported from the outset if they need to sell their property.
In many instances, apartments can be offered back to the market by the seller or their family in a poor state of decoration or repair. In our managed schemes, and where Retirementmove are employed, we can advise on how apartments can be best presented. This is not always possible in older developments.
Examples of price increases:
|
Development |
Number |
Original new sale price and date (and not including additional incentive costs to us) |
Resale price and date |
Difference (+) |
|
Eadhelm Court, Edenbridge, TN8 5FD |
22 |
£249,950 (30 March 2012) |
£280,000 (29 March 2016) |
£30,050 |
|
Holmes Place, Crowborough, TN6 2RS |
35 |
£175,776 (13 Feb 2015) |
£263,950 (16 May 2016) |
£88,174 |
|
41 |
£175,776 (12 Feb 2015) |
£275,000 (12 Feb 2016) |
£99,224 |
|
|
40 |
£175,776 (13 Feb 2015) |
£255,000 (10 Dec 2015) |
£79,224 |
|
|
Wellington Court, Waterloo Road, KT19 8EX |
6 |
£218,210 (26 Feb 2014) |
£374,950 (17 Jul 2015) |
£156,740 |
|
10 |
£188,110 (26 Feb 2014) |
£249,950 (16 May 2014) |
£61,840 |
|
|
Cabot Court, Bath Road, Bristol, BS30 9BR |
3 |
£260,000 (7 Apr 2011) |
£290,000 (6 Oct 2015) |
£30,000 |
|
15 |
£186,950 (16 May 2011) |
£220,000 (24 Jul 2015 |
£33,050 |
|
|
Peel Court, College Way, Welwyn Garden City, AL8 6DG |
18 |
£280,650 ( 20 Dec 2013) |
£330,000 (22 Mar 2016) |
£49,350 |
|
1 |
£263,000 (16 Jan 2015) |
£285,000 (27 Nov 2015) |
£22,000 |
|
|
Jowett Court, Idle, Bradford, BD10 8DF |
45 |
£124,950 (25 May 2012) |
£131,500 (26 Aug 16) |
£6,550 |
|
Roswell Court, 8 Douglas Avenue, Exmouth EX8 2FA |
34 |
£321,950 (27 Jun 2013) |
£335,000 (18 Nov 2015) |
£13,050 |
|
23 |
£264,950 (23 Jun 2013) |
£270,000 (9 Apr 2015) |
£5,050 |
Finally, we have always engaged with Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation when asked for information.
We note that this article, and many others, were published without any opportunity for us to comment beforehand. [McCarthy and Stone has been asked to substantiate this assertion, Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation.]
We struggle to see how the case studies included in the article on resale prices were chosen at random given the points made above, and they seem to have been included to provide a deliberate slant.
We note that of the c1,100 developments that could have been chosen, two of the three examples were built just prior to the financial and house price crash of 2008, making measurement of their performance difficult. We are also aware that some of the apartments you highlighted have title restrictions that may have impacted their stated resale price.
Finally, we have listened to Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation’s campaigning and engaged and responded accordingly.
In recent years, and as noted, we have moved to 999 year leases on all new developments, removed exit fees and introduced our own management services to customers, and our level of customer satisfaction is among the highest in the housebuilding industry.
We genuinely believe that we now offer a service that significantly enhances later life and offers a competitive financial return when compared to the alternatives that are facing many of our customers.
We can provide any number of homeowners across the country who speak glowingly of how moving into one of our developments has enriched their and their families’ lives.
Despite this, we note that your website continues to focus on the minority of negative cases, rather than providing a more balanced picture and highlighting all the work that has been undertaken to enhance value for our customers and further improve standards across the sector.
We’re happy to help you portray this more balanced picture if that’s a direction you wish to pursue.
Related posts:
McCarthy and Stone reform sublet fees after discussions with Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation
The Times: ‘Exit fees and poor resale values: the uncomfortable truth about retirement homes’
McCarthy and Stone gives Peverel the push at 25 retirement sites
‘Our flat at McCarthy & Stone’s Buckingham Court has fallen in value £60,000 in 14 years’
Are the 999 years leases at peppercorn ground rent ? They should be assisted to convert to Commonhold because leasehold is a form of economic slavery which can be exploited by abusive freeholders.
What are MacCarthy and Stone doing to help the old blocks which they built and sold with unfair leases to get out from under the heel of Tchenguiz and their Fairhold No. 1-2-3 etc.
The banks had mis-sold the ppi and had to repay.to customers. .
Ollie
This was in the Daily Mail circa 2012 by Richard Dyson 28/10/2012
Précis:
Investigation:
The grim reality of care home sales.
Research looked at these properties, then identified other flats in same developments sold within the past 12 months, where Land Registry records existed for another, previous sale. This showed how values had changed over a specific period. Records existed for properties in 11 of the 13 developments. The results are detailed below. They make grim reading.
Argent Court, Barnet, Greater London
2009 McCarthy flat marketed at £199,950
2008 Same flat sold £266,950
Loss of at least 25%
June 2012 flat sold for £190,000
October 2007 purchased for £248,447
Loss 24 per cent.
Wider local housing market prices fell 0.44% in the period
Pinetree Court, Stevenage, Hertfordshire
2012 McCarthy flat currently marketed at £130,000
August 2006 same flat sold for £159,450
Loss 18%
11 Months ago most recently flat sold for £147,000
December 2006 sold for £200,950
Loss 27%
Wider local market rose 3% in the period
Northgate Court, Biggleswade, Bedfordshire
Recent McCarthy flat currently marketed for resale at £164,950
April 2012 Similar flat sold for £140,000
September 2009 sold for £169,850
Loss 18%
Wider local house prices rose by 5%
Eden Court, Milton Keynes, Bedfordshire
Recent McCarthy flat currently marketed for £140,000
Flat sold twice before:
October 2007 for £172,351
September 2010 for £149,000
Both owners appear losers
January 2012 another recent flat sold for £172,500
October 2007 sold for £221,604
Los 22%
Wider market fell by 9%
Salter Court, Colchester, Essex
Recent McCarthy flat currently resale at £119,950
October 2005 same flat sold £158,950
Loss 25% over seven years
June 2012 another flat sold for £113,000
August 2005 sold previously for £148,950
Loss 24%
Wider local market grew 7%
Portman Court, Uckfield, Sussex
Flat currently marketed resale at £170,000
April 2012 similar flat sold £180,000
Previously sold in August 2008 for £249,950
Loss £70,000 in four years (28 per cent).
Wider market for the region, rose by 3% same period
Amelia Court, Worthing, Sussex
Flat currently advertised for resale at £395,000
September 2010 same property achieved £375,000
April 2010 another flat sold previously £228,950
September 2010 sold £195,000
Loss £30,000, 15%
Wider property region dropped by 2% in period
Otters Court, Witney, Oxfordshire
A flat currently advertised resale at £149,950
September 2010 sold for £177,950
Likely loss of 16 per cent or more
McCarthy owner made profit. Hurrah!
June 2012 flat sold for £249,950
Previously sold for £222,733 in November 2008
Profit 12%
Wider market’s growth, 9% for the period.
Montes Court, Coventry, West Midlands
Flat currently on market for £154,950
May 2009 sold for £179,950
loss of £25,000 (14% minimum)
July 2012 another Flat sold for £179,950
March 2008 previously sold for £229,678
Loss 22%
Wider market fell 9% in the period.
Rowan Court, Thirsk, North Yorkshire
Flat currently on market for £119,950
July 2007 sold for £107,500.
Profit 11%
Late 2011 flat sold for £144,450
May 2007 sold for £158,613
Loss of 9%
Wider local market fell 13% in the period.
Timothy Hackworth Court, Stockton-On-Tees
Flat currently on the market for £145,000
July 2008. sold for £166,261
Loss12%
February 2009 sold for £158,716
Loss 8.5%
One neighbour did better
June 2012 a flat in the complex fetched £220,000
June 2009 sold for £174,950
Profit 26%
Wider market grew 2% in the period.
From these figures it can be seen that McCarthy & Stone flats have in general lost large amounts from the original sale.
I think the figures quoted in the Daily Mail in 2012, and those quoted now by M&S explain a few facts.
The Daily Mail figures are for older properties, with a very unpopular Freeholder and often unpopular Management company. The apartments were generally small, had limited car parking and were subject to exit charges.
As I have said in another comment, around 25% of the cost of a Retirement apartment is for the lifestyle, security and convenience. These benefits over time disappeared so a drop in value of 25% is not surprising.
The M&S figures are for more recent developments managed and owned by themselves,with no Exit Fees, bigger and higher spec Apartments and more car parking. They come at a high price but providing the standards are kept high they stand a better chance of retaining or increasing their value.
The high increases they quote are in expensive areas where there are wealthy folk wishing to downsize.
There are other areas where losses have occurred. For example in Huddersfield.
So it is imperitive that M&S maintain their higher standards and never consider selling off these complexes to an inferior operator.
It may be indicative of the problems associated with the retirement property sector or possibly “reputational issues” associated with Firstport Retirement that has led to a dramatic fall in their profits.
Once a financial Jewell in contributing profits for Firstport, their profits have declined from 1,771,004 pounds in 2014 to 984,745 pounds in 2015
I think that the M&S response confirms that the much of the value of these properties is in the lifestyle and security they provide. I would estimate that the actual apartment is worth only around 75% of the selling price.
Good management, reasonable service and ground rent charges and a shortage of retirement properties will help maintain the value.
But many of the older M&S have suffered these problems so that 25% uplift disappears, and even worse the actual apartment devalues as it becomes unpleasant to live there.
So the standard of lifestyle in these new and very expensive M&S Apartments will need to be maintained, for them to hold their value.
I hope there is no cashing in by selling off the freehold or management to the highest bidder.
I notice that three times in their comments M&S refer to their customers as Homeowners.
Their partners RetirementMove also use this term.
Is it now a generally accepted term for Leaseholders?
Its part of the deception. Real homeowners don’t pay annual ground rent .
Forgive my ignorance.
Retirement Move, that McCarthy & Stone have formed an association with, is that the company that was formed out of the ruins of Cactus Healthcare, the company with connections to the failed Southern Cross empire?
If we accept that McCarthy & Stone managed developments have a better financial performance than other developments built by McCarthy & Stone, could someone explain as to the circumstances that led those residents that bought into the McCarthy & Stone lifestyle being abandoned to possibly the most notorious property management companies in the UK?
Whilst currently McCarthy & Stone is well funded, given they carry out maintenance “In house”, what safeguards are in place to protect residents, should financial institutions put McCarthy & Stone under pressure ? In such a case, how hard would it be to resist the temptation to enhance maintenance projects to increase income?
How about ARMA Q introducing these safeguards for the leaseholders of their members.
No exhortionate charges to be introduced or selling off to the highest bidder in times of crisis.
No selling off to highest bidder is wishful thinking .
A freeholder always has the right to sell his property.
Great idea, Michael Hollands,
And how about potential purchasers being informed as to which part of communal areas (including house manager’s flats) are mortgaged by the builder/freeholder?
Only the property held under separate freehold title or leasehold title which is paying rental income can be mortgaged.
The early McCarthy & Stone developments had the house manager flats as part of the common parts and they were described as such in the leases.Following the sell off in 2009 to Tchenguiz, hundreds of leases were ‘created’ on the HM flats between Tchenguiz and Peverel, which were then mortgaged to Bank of Scotland. No rent has ever been paid to the freeholder under the terms of these leases. The legality of their creation is open to question.
It is not just the “creation” of leases for house manager’s flats that is open to question?
It is also open to question as to whether the sell off of the house manager’s flats require a simple majority, or the more onerous majority that is essential for a variance of lease?
Without a variance of lease, it would be difficult to see how any service charge demand levied on the new leaseholder of a former house manager’s flat could be legally enforced?
Alex,
Some leases as I remember, did not include allowance for rent for House Managers Flats. Peverel Retirement had to refund the monies previously charged as rent
Could rent be charged by Peverel as was, where no allowance within the lease allows for this rent on other developments and have retained the rents paid.
Alex ,
Send a request to Sir Peter Bottomley’s APPG to investigate the sale of HM flats and ask why Bank of Scotland are financing what may be fraud. .
The matter starts before the mortgaging.
Q. Why did the Land Registry allow the leases to be registered?
Answer – It will register anything so long as it comes from a lawyer. It assumes correctness and does not check.
Q. Why did Bank of Scotland mortgage on unrealisable assets such as the HM flats?
Answer – Because the assets are registered at the Land Registry.
Q. Why did the Serious Fraud Office not continue with its investigation into the matter?
Answer- Because it turned it over to the Police and the Police say it is a civil matter.
For all those who are contemplating a purchase into the McCarthy & stone “lifestyle” ponder this thought?
Imagine McCarthy & Stone were not called McCarthy & Stone, but instead carried the name of their true owners?
How many people would be confident of trusting their future “lifestyle” purchase if the name was Goldman Sachs?
Does anyone believe that with their track record the first thought of Goldman Sachs executives will be the “lifestyle” of residents?
So McCarthy & $tone claim there is a 15% premium for new build properties? Maybe they can explain why that they sold off 1 bedroom flats at Laurel Court Folkestone at far less then the other properties on the development. Flat 22, £97,450 and Flat 23 £99,950. Another 1 bedroom, Flat 35 on the 3rd floor was sold in 2013 for £99,950. Other identical flats were sold at full market value of £160,000 more or less.
Resales values aren’t as rosy as they make out and Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation is right to point out the huge losses by home owners. (I should re correct myself say lease holders.)
Flat 29, Laurel Court, 24 Stanley Road, Folkestone, CT19 4RL
2016-03-31 £175,000
2010-04-28 £175,000
2008-07-25 £244,950 Loss £69,950
Flat 30, Laurel Court, 24 Stanley Road, Folkestone, CT19 4RL
2010-08-20 £160,000
2008-09-01 £238,950 Loss £79,950
Flat 31, Laurel Court, 24 Stanley Road, Folkestone, CT19 4RL
2015-12-16 £125,000
2007-11-30 £207,778 Loss £82,778
Sadly, these aren’t small values, they are quite substantial losses and they represent years of equity built up by the owners previous property gains or savings.
They represent a number of years in a decent care home. They represent the cost to the Local Authority and the public purse when the self funding runs out.
Losses of £79,000 represent a number of years in care. They represent senior employees of retirement housing developers living off the equity of the elderly, essentially. It`s shameful.
Could it be that Retirement Development flat sales are treated like airline seat tickets?
Are the flats priced so that Mcarthy & Stone are in profit after 75% of the development has been sold at full price?
After that, it makes sense to dump the remaining flats at whatever price they can as they have made their profit and can reduce their costs.
I have just noticed their are M&S built apartments for sale in our locality.
Beech Court Mapperley built in 1988.
Some hefty losses in that development on the sale prices.
The Ground Rent for a 1 Bed is £503pa.
To cap it all they were one of the victims in the Price Fixing Scandal.
Dear Michael,
A ground rent of £503pa is outrageous, making the cost of extending these leases – I assume they are 125 years with 97 years left – very expensive.
If a lease is short – that is, anything less than 999 years – and the ground rent is high, then the developer is working against the homebuyer’s interest by in-building income into the freehold.
Below are the resale prices at Beech Court from the Land Registry:
1 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2001-11-30 £59,995
10 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2007-11-02 £115,000
A 2004-10-28 £115,000
11 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2013-03-15 £82,000
A 2004-01-27 £93,000
A 1999-02-03 £56,000
12 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2011-11-25 £84,950
A 2001-10-02 £68,000
A 2000-03-01 £58,500
A 1995-08-11 £42,000
14 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2013-10-09 £72,500
A 2010-08-19 £90,000
15 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2013-09-27 £88,500
A 2007-08-10 £115,000
16 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2014-06-12 £75,500
A 2011-05-27 £85,000
A 1996-05-17 £42,000
17 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2010-10-05 £87,500
18 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2016-07-22 £120,000
A 2014-04-30 £105,000
A 2001-01-03 £72,000
A 1995-03-17 £62,000
19 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2013-08-23 £75,000
A 2003-09-24 £88,000
A 1997-03-25 £49,995
2 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2014-04-25 £75,000
21 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2011-02-04 £85,000
A 2000-12-01 £57,000
A 1995-03-31 £52,000
22 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2013-05-31 £73,000
A 2001-08-10 £60,000
23 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2011-08-15 £120,000
A 2010-08-27 £120,000
A 2001-06-07 £70,950
24 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2010-08-13 £95,000
A 1999-11-12 £56,000
25 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2015-07-22 £88,500
A 2006-01-27 £109,000
26 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2007-11-13 £110,000
A 2004-01-08 £90,000
A 1999-12-10 £55,000
27 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2014-06-18 £73,000
A 1996-03-29 £42,000
28 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2014-12-19 £74,000
29 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2015-06-26 £66,000
3 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2016-08-12 £99,950
A 2001-08-10 £67,500
30 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2001-10-29 £65,000
A 1995-08-07 £48,000
31 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 1997-07-28 £49,950
A 1995-05-12 £47,000
32 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2014-04-01 £64,000
A 1996-04-03 £47,000
33 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2016-06-23 £85,000
A 2005-08-01 £112,000
A 2001-01-12 £55,500
A 1998-02-27 £53,000
34 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2003-12-12 £93,000
35 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2014-08-15 £89,000
A 2007-02-19 £146,950
A 2003-10-31 £85,000
A 1996-02-14 £64,000
36 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2014-12-19 £95,000
37 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2006-03-02 £110,000
38 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2005-09-22 £113,000
39 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 1995-03-09 £49,500
40 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2013-09-24 £62,000
A 2006-05-31 £112,000
A 2000-09-01 £45,000
41 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2016-07-14 £115,500
A 2015-11-18 £114,950
A 2010-02-12 £132,500
A 2003-02-07 £95,000
43 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2014-09-26 £75,500
45 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 1998-07-20 £55,000
46 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2014-06-30 £75,000
A 2001-08-17 £51,000
47 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2014-09-10 £68,500
A 1999-03-19 £45,000
A 1995-06-16 £42,500
48 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2007-09-18 £115,000
49 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2013-09-27 £71,500
A 2006-09-08 £114,950
A 2004-06-09 £90,000
A 1996-06-26 £39,995
5 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2009-09-11 £95,500
A 2002-09-23 £69,950
A 2001-05-21 £57,950
50 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2014-11-28 £72,000
A 1999-10-08 £50,000
51 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2014-01-13 £95,000
A 2006-08-21 £145,000
6 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2011-11-11 £95,000
A 2001-06-04 £60,000
7 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2013-06-14 £85,000
A 1997-09-29 £59,000
8 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2009-05-29 £100,000
A 1997-08-11 £51,500
9 Beech Court, Nottingham, NG3 5PZ
Transaction history
A 2012-07-25 £83,000