Define Fully Furnished?

mlz1413

miserly_mum wrote: »

That is an extremely good point and something I hadn't thought of, Thanks

OH is a Manager in a local Business and has quite a few employees looking for accomodation nearer work. Mostly guys in their mid/late 20's who are currently living at home and obviously don't have all the essential to move in with.

Thats why we were (only)considering renting with furniture. Basics like Sofa, table and chairs,cooker ,washing machine ,beds and drawers for clothes.

Blinds,carpets and existing laminate floors are included in the purchase price

If the rental is for people looking 'near to work' are you thinking of exective lets or a property to live in whilst employee is relocating?
the first needs everything, plates, glasses, saucepans, towels, bed linen, tv, toaster as well as furniture. The second should have furniture and white goods but not the 'portable' stuff but remember with this you are unlikely to have tenants for over 6 months and so will have a high chance of voids and lots of advertising and checks to do.

If you think you will have a high turnover of tenants I would look at having the place professionally cleaned before you let it and then make it a condition of the tenancy to return at professional cleaned standard.

Premier_2

moneysavinmonkey wrote: »

exactly my point... or did I miss something and the credit crunch only affects FTBers and not BTL folk.... in fact many banks are now very shy of BTL and the rates are higher too.

True the OP may have the £10k deposit that an FTB is still working towards but I'd suggest there are much better things to invest it in than property at the current time.

A BTL investor need a lot more than 5% deposit. However, they can usually use equity built up in another property to fund it

If you would prefer to 'invest' such money in the local pub or on the GGs that's probably why you are not a LL. Where is most of Alan Sugar's fortune? Or that of Tesco? Or that of Kingfisher (who own B&Q)? I wonder if they'll listen to your advice about investing in property :rotfl:

moneysavinmonkey

Premier wrote: »

A BTL investor need a lot more than 5% deposit. However, they can usually use equity built up in another property to fund it

If you would prefer to 'invest' such money in the local pub or on the GGs that's probably why you are not a LL. Where is most of Alan Sugar's fortune? Or that of Tesco? Or that of Kingfisher (who own B&Q)? I wonder if they'll listen to your advice about investing in property :rotfl:

:eek: :eek: :eek: ! Premier, i seem to have rattled your cage. You usually are a very well balanced poster and give good advice so i'm now wondering what I have said that is wrong!

My 'fortune' is invested either in the bank or NSI bonds earning me a good rate of interest thanks. I'm not advocating anyone should ' invest' in their local pub or gamble it away - a most bizarre suggestion.

I understand most of Sr'Alans fortune is tied up in property....(SAS incidentally advertises NSI)... wonder why he needs to appear on tele then if he is making so much money then!

True, Tesco hold huge land banks, but this is largerly strategical to stop other supermarkets from being built.

Don't know anything about kingfisher (B&Q) but a quick google of their share price shows they are down 30% in a year.

I note other companies who own lot's of land/property (e.g. house builders) haven't been doing so well lately either.

LandyAndy

Premier wrote: »

e.g. I've seen fully furnished to mean evrything supplied so that a tenant can just move straight in. e.g. including cuttlery, crockery etc. - often for students or excecutive lets. It can also be used as a term that means just the basic furniture for each room is supplied (e.g. dining table & chairs, settee, beds & wardrobes, kitchen white goods, etc)

When we rented a 'fully furnished' 4 bed house it meant just that. The only thing we needed to bring was food and clothes. It currently rents at £925 pcm.

Staciep88

As an example we were in a part furnished property and it consisted of everything in the kitchen, a table, sofas, telly, beds, it had a washing machine - but no tumble dryer. See to me that seems fully furnished - i think the best thing to do would be to look at other rented properties online and even speak to an estate agent.

Premier_2

moneysavinmonkey wrote: »

:eek: :eek: :eek: ! Premier, i seem to have rattled your cage. You usually are a very well balanced poster and give good advice so i'm now wondering what I have said that is wrong!

My 'fortune' is invested either in the bank or NSI bonds earning me a good rate of interest thanks. I'm not advocating anyone should ' invest' in their local pub or gamble it away - a most bizarre suggestion.

I understand most of Sr'Alans fortune is tied up in property....(SAS incidentally advertises NSI)... wonder why he needs to appear on tele then if he is making so much money then!

True, Tesco hold huge land banks, but this is largerly strategical to stop other supermarkets from being built.

Don't know anything about kingfisher (B&Q) but a quick google of their share price shows they are down 30% in a year.

I note other companies who own lot's of land/property (e.g. house builders) haven't been doing so well lately either.

Thank you for your kind comments, but I've noticed my views are often opposed to yours based on past threads.

NSI pay less than 5% gross pa. You might get a bank account that pays a little bit more. Both are great for short term investments where you may need your cash soon.

But compare that to the 160+% increase in house prices over the past 10 years even including the 7.3% they have fallen since their peak last October and you'll see it's not such a good investment. Remember to factor in also the rental income they generate (or you don't have to pay) this too usually far exceeds any interest on capital employed.

With regards to Kingfisher, the fall in share price could be due to any number of reasons (e.g. was overpriced, suggested a decreased dividend, etc) As well as the FTSE100 falling from a peak of about 6800 to about 5300 in that period, I guess much has to do with the appalling performance of B&Q (and their other similar stores). Unfortunately, capital tied up in property does not produce dividends itself, but without the property portfolio, I would suspect B&Q would have already gone bust by now.

House builders are an entirely different animal completely. They don't plan to make money by investing in property - they plan to make money by building property and sell it as soon as it's built.

miserly_mum

Well thanks to everyone for their comments. I'm not as naive as I perhaps sound. I'm well aware that buying to rent is an investment and that we need to charge enough rent to cover our mortgage payments with (hopefully)some to spare.

OH sold his house in Jan and we've a lump sum to invest. We(well I have) 3 teenagers who will be outgrowing our house....and us in the not too distant future. The idea is that all of them and their friends will be renting this and hopefully the next 2 properties we will be buying.

Where we live has almost no social/council housing so if unless they want to stay at home until they are 30(dread the thought) they might aswell pay us rent than a stranger

In the meantime we're hoping to rent to possibly employees of my OH. People we know and trust. Even if this doesn't happen our local letting agents have a list of people needing/wanting accomodation

Even when the 3 older kids flee the nest we've another 3 younger ones coming up to take their place.

neverdespairgirl

miserly_mum wrote: »

Well thanks to everyone for their comments. I'm not as naive as I perhaps sound. I'm well aware that buying to rent is an investment and that we need to charge enough rent to cover our mortgage payments with (hopefully)some to spare.

Have you checked the exact figures? Rent, purchase price, running costs, maintenance, etc?

Most BTL mortgages now require that the rent is 125% or more of the mortgage payment.

moneysavinmonkey

Premier wrote: »

Thank you for your kind comments, but I've noticed my views are often opposed to yours based on past threads.

NSI pay less than 5% gross pa. You might get a bank account that pays a little bit more. Both are great for short term investments where you may need your cash soon.

But compare that to the 160+% increase in house prices over the past 10 years even including the 7.3% they have fallen since their peak last October and you'll see it's not such a good investment. Remember to factor in also the rental income they generate (or you don't have to pay) this too usually far exceeds any interest on capital employed.

With regards to Kingfisher, the fall in share price could be due to any number of reasons (e.g. was overpriced, suggested a decreased dividend, etc) As well as the FTSE100 falling from a peak of about 6800 to about 5300 in that period, I guess much has to do with the appalling performance of B&Q (and their other similar stores). Unfortunately, capital tied up in property does not produce dividends itself, but without the property portfolio, I would suspect B&Q would have already gone bust by now.

House builders are an entirely different animal completely. They don't plan to make money by investing in property - they plan to make money by building property and sell it as soon as it's built.

Just because we have opposing views doesn't mean that I can't appreciate the time + advice you give to posters on theses forums.

My NSI bond gives more than 5% interest ( and it's tax free too)... i think perhaps the more recent issues aren't as good ?? Will look into that one again incase thanks.

You are quite right to say that over the last 10 years you would have been much better having your money in property than in the bank, unfortunately 10 years ago I didn't have any money as I was still at school so to me this is somewhat irrelevant. What is important to me is what property vs the bank will do in the next 10 years and as the small print says "past performance does not guarantee future returns"!!!

Premier_2

moneysavinmonkey wrote: »

...You are quite right to say that over the last 10 years you would have been much better having your money in property than in the bank, unfortunately 10 years ago I didn't have any money as I was still at school so to me this is somewhat irrelevant. What is important to me is what property vs the bank will do in the next 10 years and as the small print says "past performance does not guarantee future returns"!!!

No idea over the next 10 years but there's a prediction they will rise by nearly 25% over the next five years, and 10% in 2013 alone

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1058961

...and think of the rent you'll be paying in that period