I'm not buying

Procrastinator333

ukcarper wrote: »

Doesn’t the whole thing depend on what house prices do and as seen on here that is hard to predict. So isn’t it a gamble either way.

Yes very true, plus many other things, gamble wither way. The point of my post was not to say renting is better. Simply to show that renting is not the cataclysmic waste of money that many beleve it to be. Under some circumstances it is the cheaper option. As it has been for me. Buying is the better long term option, no doubt, but waiting for the best point to get on the housing ladder can make a huge difference to either the size of house you own or the % of your income that goes on mortgage costs.

Procrastinator333

Dan: wrote: »

100 times more secure then worrying about the landlord renewing your contract every 12 months.

This is probably something that can never be shown either way:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/jun/22/repossessions-falling-mortgages

65,000 repos in 2009.

You really think 65,000 tenants were asked to leave in the year? I dunno, maybe, no real way of proving it either way.

I personally feel more secure in rented than if I had a variable large mortgage atm. Even if the landlord gives me 2 months notice, so what, £500 and a weekend and I'm in somewhere new. Sitting on a variable, I would be bricking it after seeing a cpi of 2.9%.

moneysaver

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

To a degree, but if you want security of not moving, you can take a fixed term tenancy. neither party can cancel for the agreed period. After that there is 2 months notice. So you will never justhave to up sticks and move. Plus if you are a good tenant, they are very unlikely to ask you to leave. Unless they are selling, why would they?

Regarding rent increases. They can't do it without your agreement and they can't do it in the fixed period. After that if they request a rent increase and you say no, you finish out your notice, paying the same rent.

Also, unless you are on a fixed mortgage, your interest costs go up without your control too

I am on the same wavelength as you.

I am just biding my time until the right property comes along at a fair price and then I will buy it. I have looked at a few in the last 4/5mths. I even went for one but I pulled out due to the survey not coming up to scratch.

I will not be paying silly money for a property just to get on the bandwagon. This is how all this buying lark took off years ago.


Moneysaver

moneysaver

Dan: wrote: »

100 times more secure then worrying about the landlord renewing your contract every 12 months.

I don't have this worry as stated in my previous post. I do not know anyone who is renting private, so it does not apply to any of my family, friends or workmates.


Moneysaver

Dan:_4

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

This is probably something that can never be shown either way:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/jun/22/repossessions-falling-mortgages

65,000 repos in 2009.

You really think 65,000 tenants were asked to leave in the year? I dunno, maybe, no real way of proving it either way.

I personally feel more secure in rented than if I had a variable large mortgage atm. Even if the landlord gives me 2 months notice, so what, £500 and a weekend and I'm in somewhere new. Sitting on a variable, I would be bricking it after seeing a cpi of 2.9%.

If your sitting on a variable, you would currently be benefiting from low mortgage repayments, so there will be a margin for increase to get back to what you were paying in 2007/2008.

No need to brick it by sitting on a variable - if it makes one feel nervous, then just switch to a fixed deal - plenty of them out there these days and a lot less hassle having to uproot and move elsewhere as per your example above, and I certainly wouldn't do that if I had a family to think about.

Dan:_4

moneysaver wrote: »

I don't have this worry as stated in my previous post. I do not know anyone who is renting private, so it does not apply to any of my family, friends or workmates.


Moneysaver

Just pointing out that private renting is a lot more unsecured then buying. For some people this is the right thing to do, for others, it isn't.

Sure, if your in social housing you probably cant get much more secure then that - it's not for everyone though.

Jonbvn

Dan: wrote: »

it's not for everyone though.

I believe that in social housing all the TV channels only show Jeremy Kyle 24/7:p

moneysaver

Jonbvn wrote: »

I believe that in social housing all the TV channels only show Jeremy Kyle 24/7:p

Not in my house.

Don't tar all social tenants with the same brush.



Moneysaver

Jonbvn

moneysaver wrote: »

Not in my house.

Don't tar all social tenants with the same brush.



Moneysaver

Sense of humour by-pass sir?

Procrastinator333

Dan: wrote: »

If your sitting on a variable, you would currently be benefiting from low mortgage repayments, so there will be a margin for increase to get back to what you were paying in 2007/2008.

No need to brick it by sitting on a variable - if it makes one feel nervous, then just switch to a fixed deal - plenty of them out there these days and a lot less hassle having to uproot and move elsewhere as per your example above, and I certainly wouldn't do that if I had a family to think about.

A lot of people are on svr's, they are not really benefitting. You can bet any rate rise will be passed on. Or any significant shift in the gilt market. There are also a lot of people stuck on svrs who can't remortgage.

Ultimately, it is a personal preference, probably driven in the main by the point in life at which you find yourself. Never going to reach an agreement on this.

As the focus of this thread has shifted away from the notion that renting can be cheaper, I'm assuming that fact is no longer being debated? :T

Quite surprised Hamish hasn't been back, maybe he hasn't been at a comp for a while.

Maybe if I taunt him a bit he will be back>>> Hamish >>>> to you.

I'm only messing, keen to here your thoughts, do you concede the point or is there an aspect of my calculation you disagree with?