Editorial & Advertiser Disclosure Global Banking And Finance Review is an independent publisher which offers News, information, Analysis, Opinion, Press Releases, Reviews, Research reports covering various economies, industries, products, services and companies. The content available on globalbankingandfinance.com is sourced by a mixture of different methods which is not limited to content produced and supplied by various staff writers, journalists, freelancers, individuals, organizations, companies, PR agencies Sponsored Posts etc. The information available on this website is purely for educational and informational purposes only. We cannot guarantee the accuracy or applicability of any of the information provided at globalbankingandfinance.com with respect to your individual or personal circumstances. Please seek professional advice from a qualified professional before making any financial decisions. Globalbankingandfinance.com also links to various third party websites and we cannot guarantee the accuracy or applicability of the information provided by third party websites. Links from various articles on our site to third party websites are a mixture of non-sponsored links and sponsored links. Only a very small fraction of the links which point to external websites are affiliate links. Some of the links which you may click on our website may link to various products and services from our partners who may compensate us if you buy a service or product or fill a form or install an app. This will not incur additional cost to you. A very few articles on our website are sponsored posts or paid advertorials. These are marked as sponsored posts at the bottom of each post. For avoidance of any doubts and to make it easier for you to differentiate sponsored or non-sponsored articles or links, you may consider all articles on our site or all links to external websites as sponsored . Please note that some of the services or products which we talk about carry a high level of risk and may not be suitable for everyone. These may be complex services or products and we request the readers to consider this purely from an educational standpoint. The information provided on this website is general in nature. Global Banking & Finance Review expressly disclaims any liability without any limitation which may arise directly or indirectly from the use of such information.

Brexit voting cities leading UK property market confidence

Key pro-Leave areas like Hull, Bradford and Stoke-on-Trent are showing the most confidence in property market, according to stats from comparison site NetAnAgent.com

The current weakness in the UK property market has been blamed on the uncertainty surrounding the current tabled Brexit deal.

A report by the British Property Federation in February, trade association for UK residential and commercial real estate companies, found that 73% of members felt that Brexit negotiations would pose the greatest threat this year. However, it seems that how you cast your vote plays a big part in how you feel about putting your property on the market.

Stats released today suggest some of the most ardent Leave voting areas of the UK are still very confident when it comes to putting their properties on the market. Data from agent comparison website NetAnAgent.com looked at how many website enquiries (those who register their details on the platform) are going to valuation with estate agents, which helps to show the level of confidence sellers across the nation are currently feeling and how likely they are to put their property on the market.

Hull, which was returned a leave result of 65%, is actually showing 28% above the national average of properties going to valuation through the NetAnAgent site showing the confidence residents feel in getting their place on the market. Similarly Bradford (54% leave) is 20% up on the average and Stoke on Trent (69% leave) 4% more likely to go to valuation.

At the other end of the scale Bristol, Remain stronghold who voted 62% to stay in the EU is at the bottom of our confidence index 44% less likely to list than the national average. Similarly Manchester (60% remain) is down 12% and Brighton (69% remain) down 4% on the national listing index average.

Although London can often seen as something of a property microcosm figures on the capital’s market shows it is holding up well around average with homeowners 4% more likely to go to valuation.

NetAnAgent CEO, Alex Thorpe, said:

“It interesting to see that the way different areas voted in the EU referendum does seem to have had an impact on how they view the state of the UK property market with a good number of ‘Leave’ areas showing greater levels of confidence than those who voted Remain. It suggests that Remainers are more pessimistic about the prospect of putting there house on the market, measured by how many of them are going to valuation through the NetAnAgent site, a key early indicator of confidence in the market.

 Senstive and sentiment driven

NetAnAgent figures also show how online agents may have helped to influence the cost of selling your home with fees from traditional agents down an average of 15% percent across the UK compared to the same period in 2016 with some areas seeing a drop of up to 40%. For example: NetAnAgent data shows that in Leeds the average agent fee has dropped from 1.45% in 2016 to 1.18% in 2018, a proportional decrease of 18.6% meaning sellers would now pay £2439.65 in fees compared to £2997.88 in 2016*. Across the UK this means that sellers can now expect to save on £307 on their house sale through a traditional local agent.

Conversely online fees would appeared to have increased on average 27% in the past two years from £587.25 to £804.75 as they seek to improve service level and offer more to the vendors.

NetAnAgent CEO, Alex Thorpe, commented:

“We have certainly seem something of a closing of the gap of agents’ fees over the last few year as traditional agents have lowered their fees to compete with the online and hybrid models now in the market. Interestingly ever there are pockets across the country where agents selling more exclusive properties have actually raised their fees to reflect the drop in transactions. They are subject to less pressure from the hybrid agents so have retained some flexibility with regard to fees.”