London areas to rent.

ag359

morwenna_macro wrote:

A break clause means that you can break the agreement early. Typically a 12 month tenancy might have a break clause at 6 months - i.e that you can decide to leave at any time after 6 months has passed by giving the specified notice (and you may want to try to limit the notice you have to give to eg 1 month). This gives you flexibility. So, if you don't know when exactly you are going to leave, I suggest you take a longer term tenancy, but have a break clause. This worked for us for our last rental. We knew that we were thinking about buying our first place at some time in the following 2 years and wanted to be flexible about leaving. Rather than take a 12 month tenancy and then have to decide whether to then take another tenancy, we took a 2 year tenancy, with a break clause after 12 months. This meant we did not have to give notice until after we had exchanged contracts on our new home. If we had just taken a 12 month, we would have had to have taken out a new tenancy when that ended and would have been in difficulty. An alternative is to "hold over" after a tenancy ends, rather than sign a new tenancy agreement. You remain a tenant under the same terms (now a periodic tenancy) and can just give the requisite notice whenever it suits. Most Landlords are keen for you to sign up to a new one, although you should try this - tell them you will leave otherwise and also they will save on agents' fees (most charge for each new agreement).

thanks for that - I hadn't thought about doing that, and it sounds like we are in an almost identical situation to yours at the start of your tenancy. Did you find that most landlords were willing to offer a 2 year tenancy with a break clause as you describe, or did you have to pay a premium on your rent in order to get it?

morwenna_macro

I don't know about MOST landlords, but in our situation we had already been there for one year. First I negotiated the rent downwards (we knocked another £15 pw off, having originally agreed to £25pw off the rent asked for), then I asked for a 6 month break clause in the next 12 months. This was rejected. Then (in the knowledge that most landlords are always concerned to have long-term security of a good tenant in there and no vacant periods) I suggested a 2 year tenancy with a 12 month break clause. I made sure that he did not know why I wanted it and made it sound to his advantage (we would be there at least 12 months and for up to 2 years).

Don't pay a premium for this. Break clauses are not that unusual, perhaps just not used enough. Initially, there was a break clause in the tenancy agreement for the first tenancy with this landlord, but this was only in the landlord's favour. We asked for the same to apply to us or the break clause be removed. It was removed.

Therefore, always check the agreement before you sign - don't be afraid to ask to remove terms or to add terms; it is your agreement (incidentally tenancy agreements are now, I believe, covered by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts regulations so that harsh terms can be challenged). One anecdote - I once met a friend of a friend who was a landlord who boasted that he had inserted a "no sex on polished surfaces" clause in the tenancy agreement and no tenant had challenged it. Warped if you ask me, but if it is true, it shows that too many people sign up without checking the terms they are agreeing to.

ag359

Thanks MM, that's a really useful post - I'll bear it in mind when we go and find somewhere to rent.

Just another question - how did you go about negotiating the rent? Did you give a reason for wanting a lower rent, such as not being able to afford it? I would worried about saying that in case it made the landlord think I might not be able to pay the rent, which would make my bargaining position worse! Does that make sense?

lush_walrus

Im not sure what size you are looking for but if you are considering one bedroom properties you may be able to get something in Angel/Highbury/Islington if you dont mind a bit of a walk to a tube, or around Old Street which is easy walking distance to Liverpool St etc. If you want larger than one bedrooms it may become a bit more difficult.

If you are planning east I would say avoid Hackney / Stoke Newington area, some may say its up and coming but still a long way to go before either are safe areas! Also avoid Stratford, Leyton, Leytonstone, which all appear tempting as they are close and reported as also being up and coming but full of social problems.

morwenna_macro

ag359 wrote:

Thanks MM, that's a really useful post - I'll bear it in mind when we go and find somewhere to rent.

Just another question - how did you go about negotiating the rent? Did you give a reason for wanting a lower rent, such as not being able to afford it? I would worried about saying that in case it made the landlord think I might not be able to pay the rent, which would make my bargaining position worse! Does that make sense?

Refer to your budget rather than what you can afford, but the best thing to base it on is that the property is not worth it for the amenities/size/location etc. Of course, you do not have to give a reason. eg come in at £25pw lower and if they don't accept it, say that its too high and you will look elsewhere (perhaps mention another viewing with another agent). Tell them to give you a ring if they change their mind. Generally, a landlord will be more concerned at having an empty property (costing them £x in mortgage all the while) rather than a few pounds off the rental. Before putting in an offer on the rent, remind the agent of your strengths (married couple, steady jobs....). Hope this helps!

ag359

lush_walrus wrote:

Im not sure what size you are looking for but if you are considering one bedroom properties you may be able to get something in Angel/Highbury/Islington if you dont mind a bit of a walk to a tube, or around Old Street which is easy walking distance to Liverpool St etc. If you want larger than one bedrooms it may become a bit more difficult.

If you are planning east I would say avoid Hackney / Stoke Newington area, some may say its up and coming but still a long way to go before either are safe areas! Also avoid Stratford, Leyton, Leytonstone, which all appear tempting as they are close and reported as also being up and coming but full of social problems.

What about Mile End? Does that have the same problems as Leytonstone, Stratford etc?

morwenna_macro

ag359 wrote:

What about Mile End? Does that have the same problems as Leytonstone, Stratford etc?

Are you checking up on me? There is a really nice area of mile end just by the tube station (north of Mile End Road) called the Tradegar Square conservation area. Basically, Tredegar Square itself is the most desirable place to live in East London and is really nice town houses surrounding a really nice square. The surrounding streets are very unspoilt with terraces of lovely houses in a conservation area with Victorian Street lamps etc and there are some really nice gastropubs. Not far from the lovely and massive Victoria Park and the Regents Canal/Mile End park. There are of course the odd council blocks also. It is hard to find completely unspoilt areas of London unless you are a millionaire. I like it and bought a house (right on the outskirts of the conservation area, nearer Bow Rd tube), but spent a lot of time looking in that area. Have a look on the estate agents' websites and if anything tickles your fancy why not take a look round the area? I would say that Mile End Rd itself is not the nicest, but I do feel safe. Local estate agents include Keatons and WJ Meade (I used both).

lush_walrus

ag359 wrote:

What about Mile End? Does that have the same problems as Leytonstone, Stratford etc?

To be completely honest I really dont know, the problem with London is that right slap bang next to a good area will always be a very bad one. Mile End did have a very bad reputation and I havent heard that its changed, but its not a place I ever go to or have any friends. I have noticed that someone on here has defended it quite heavily so I would say it may be best to consider it and have a look when you are in London.

If you have a look at any area in London, the most important thing to look for are the surrounding streets, and the route you will take to the station. If either look dodgy I would say avoid it as these are the most likely places you will go to. The other thing to look for is what sort of shops they have around the area, as once an area is coming up and good people have started to go into an area along come all of the cafes and little shops. If they arent there then chances are neither are the anywhere near affluent people.

One place I forgot to mention before is Borough and around there, over the bridge in the south but a pretty short walk back to the city and a lovely market.

meanmachine_2

Yes, always visit the area in the day AND at night (with a friend if you need to).

Human beings are very good at picking up on the atmos of an area - it's instinctual.

I've worked in Borough and found it noisy, polluted, but OK otherwise. It wouldn't be cheapy though.

East London is cheap for a reason. Nice, middle class areas are expensive for the reason that high prices keep out the riff raff. If they were as cheap as everywhere else, they'd be as rough as everywhere else. Think about it...

Having said that, there are nice streets in all areas. It's getting from your house to your destination that might give you problems.

I always find I have to choose between a nice area and a skanky flat, or a skanky flat in a nice area.

re: rent negotiations, this becomes easier after you've paid up on time for a year or so. My last landlord loved me (naturally), since I left the place tidier than I found it, offered a reduction to stay and actually game me my deposit back with interest!

Rave

My dad was paying £1000 PCM for a 2-bed flat with balcony on the 8th floor (of a 12-floor building) near Gallion's Reach DLR station. He had a fabulous view out over the airport and on towards the city/ Canary Wharf etc. although the planes taking off and landing could be a bit noisy sometimes.

I'm not sure about the commute but I shouldn't think it would be too long on the DLR. The whole area seems to be being developed along that branch of the DLR (especially since the Olympic announcement). He's just bought a 2-bed flat in a block across from his previous one (2nd floor, so not such a good view, but it has a second bathroom which is what they wanted) and his mortgage is £1700 PCM! I think he's nuts but I guess it's that much of an upcoming area that he shouldn't get hammered too hard if there's a house price crash. The only problem with living in the Docklands/ East London area is that it would be a bit crap if you can't drive- buses seem to be fairly nonexistant and it's 3-4 miles to the nearest supermarket!

For all this talk of areas being considered 'rough', I live in Catford which I reckon most people would describe as a rough area and I never have any grief at all, nor does my wife.