Buying a House in London

Blacksheep1979

MrsE wrote: »

All the below 5, are SW postcodes, but all border SE London.

Norbury,
Brixton,
Clapham,
Stockwell,
Streatham

What, and that means they automagically stop being south west? Are you honestly saying you only count areas that are fully surrounded by other SW areas as south west? Might be time you took a little lie down and check to ensure you've had your medication today...

Thermidor

MrsE wrote: »

No I didn't.
I ALWAYS said south WEST London, South East London is a p1ss hole.

Streatham and Norbury are South West London - and they're p1ss holes!

Gambit

Wow.... this is an interesting thread with various different opinions. Which I think illustrates that different people have different needs. What is a good area for one person may not be right for another and there is no real 'right answer' to the question you have asked St00zer.

CarineG wrote: »

I live in South Norwood which is in zone 4 (part of Croydon) and you can easily get a decent 3 bedroom house with a decent size garden for less than £250K.
South Norwood consist of Norwood Junction (where I live) and Crystal Palace.

For example I lived in South Norwood for a year and did like it that much as was based in between Thornton Heath, Selhurt and Norwood Junction stations. It was a bit if a long walk and my girlfriend did not always feel safe when walking home in the dark and to be honest I dont blame her as Thornton Heath isnt the safest station to walk home from. On the other hand I lived in Norbury most of my life and liked living there (apart from when the trains had delays and cancellations) but I lived about 2 minutes walk from the station and never had any problems there. I now live in South Wimbledon which is the best area I have lived in but I am literally next to the station and am pretty much round the corner from Wimbledon so the commute to work is great. We also live in an ex local authority block on a main road which is safer than some other streets around here as Corona007 has also said.

MrsE wrote: »

"Most" residential areas of London are a street or two away from a crap area.

I agree very much with Mrs E as I dont know about North London but this is very true about South London. So I dont think anyone can say a whole area is "safe" as it really depends on the street you are talking about.

Corona007 wrote: »

The golden rule about moving to London when you don't have ties to any specific area is always, always, always rent first. Find an area you like and feel comfortable in before you commit yourself long term. I've lost track of the number of people I know in London who moved to an area they don't know well and find they regret it (e.g their commute is ok on paper but a nightmare in real life, the area is dodgy at night etc etc).

For that reason I really think you should take this advice on board as until you know an area, I dont think you can make this sort of decision as what some think is safe, you might not and vice-versa.

Corona007 wrote: »

Bear in mind that in London there is a chronic shortage of quality "family" properties on market. Flats are plentiful and you will find a nice two bed flat in zone 2/3 for £250k but to find a 3 bed house of equivalent standard and location you will be paying significantly more - much more than the equity you'll earn over a few years. You'll either have to compromise on location or quality.

More good advice from Corona007 here as I do not think you can find a "family" house as close as you want to London for £250k, I really dont! I'm flat hunting at the mo and am looking for a 2 bed in Southfields for under £250k but will consider ex-LA and that's probably pushing my wish list already. I would be surprised if you could find a 3 bed house in central London for less than £250k.

St00zer wrote: »

Megarobbie

I would never but a ex-local flat, not even to rent out. My view is why should I work hard and earn money to buy a place to live in which I know the next door neighbour is probably being handed it to him/her on a plate for doing naff all?

I think you should not rule out ex-LA as I live in one and you have loads more space for your money. You just need to make sure that most are privately owned which ensures people take more care of the block if they own the flat.

St00zer wrote: »

I actually live in London already. I have lived in London all my life.
I work in Canary Wharf.
All my family live in London and 90% of my friends are based here.
I want a good long term base as well as capital appreciation.

St00zer wrote: »

I was interested in buying in East London because of the potential....although it is currently not a nice area I think it is East London where a lot of money will be made from property due to the regeneration.

Or I could be totally wrong and the property prices in the nicer central parts of London will appreciate more as there is only so many houses/flats they can build here and therefore demand will pull prices up.....

St00zer wrote: »

RacyRed,

Why would the renting option not work? I was thinking along the lines of buying a flat with the aim of recieving enough income to pay the mortgage. In the mean time continue to save more money on the side and then in 2-3 years time sell the house and use the proceeds plus additional savings and hopefully a few payrises to buy an even larger house in a nice area?

St00zer - I think you need to decide why you want to buy. As one minute you say it's gonna be a family home but then you talk about selling up in 2-3 years. I think if you want to buy a flat as an investment then look for a 1/2 bed flat in London with good transport links near to shops which you could sell on in a few years. But if you want the family home now I would look further afield. I am personally buying a 2 bed flat with my girlfriend in Southfields but when I want a family home I will defo be buying out of London as you get more for your money and it's also safer. I'll have a long commute to work (if I still work in London) but it's a sacrifice I'll have to make for a better quality of life for my kids.

St00zer wrote: »

I also recently realised I don't like commuting long distances. I wouldn't mind a one off but not everyday. I think it is a waste of 1-2 hours everyday.

Althought 30mins on the tube is OK for me.

I think you are opting not to commute then you will have to settle for a flat.

Your house 'wish list' seems a bit too big tbh as this is what I have so far reading this thread:
1. 3 Bed House
2. May consider flat if share of the freehold (hard to find)
3. Close to tube
4. Tube no more than 30 mins from London
5. Safe area not near too much social housing
6. Not a "rough" area
All for under £250k

I think I have to agree with RacyRed...

RacyRed wrote: »

Then forget it and stay away from London because you will find it impossible to find somewhere you can live....<snipped>
PLEASE! Don't buy anything until you have rented in London for a while. You are expecting way too much. Olly300 is absolutely right, you know absolutely nothing about London yet.

Gambit

Thermidor wrote: »

Traffic jams are no more frequent than they are anywhere in the UK! You clearly don't drive. It's utter rubbish to say that travelling just a couple of miles takes 1 hour! What rot! Neither does it take 3 to 4 hours to commute inside London! You clearly don't know London at all.

As for pollution.....err, where exactly?! Those days are gone!

Overcrowding??? Where?!!!!! Yes, the tube gets busy in the rush hour...........but that's different to overcrowding! In fact, London is far from overcrowded!

London has the worst traffic in the UK and so this creates a lot of pollution. Have you ever tried to cross London on a weekday morning??? And what do you mean there is no overcrowding? Tell that to the people crushed into a tube or train on a Monday morning on the way to work.

Thermidor wrote: »

There's many parts of London that I like.

If I had an unlimited budget I'd buy in somewhere like Highgate, Little Venice, Chelsea, Mayfair, Belgravia, Hampstead, St John's Wood or somewhere overlooking the Thames.

On a somewhat lower budget I'd look at Clapham Old Town, Wandsworth Common, Dulwich Village, Putney, Richmond, Notting Hill or Kensington.

I'd also look at Southgate, Palmers Green, Muswell Hill, Winchmore Hill, Blackheath, South Croydon and Purley.

All of those areas are lovely.

I'm sorry, did I read that right? Notting Hill and Kensington is where you would look if you had a 'lower budget'? Are you nuts? Have you seen house prices round there???

Thermidor wrote: »

Streatham and Norbury are South West London - and they're p1ss holes!

Well of course you would think that if you are the kind of person who thinks houses in Kensington are for those on 'lower budgets'! Seriously, are you for real??

cococoladebt

"3 bed house in central London for less than £250k"

One can't even buy a 2 bed flat for £250k let alone a 3 bed house in central london.

Stratford/Walthamstow/Leyton/Leytonstone is your best bet.

MrsE_2

Thermidor wrote: »

Err, did you actually READ what I wrote?! We were talking North and South London! You said South London is more salubrious the north - and I disagree with you!

No, I said SOUTH WEST London was nicer, care to show me where I said south London?

Furthermore, you cannot be serious to say that Norbury borders SOUTH EAST London!!! You need a geography lesson! Norbury is not that far from Surrey - HARDLY south EAST London!! Norbury is SW16!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbury Norbury adjoins CRYSTAL PALACE SE19


Streatham (big area) also straddles Mitcham - Surrey! Hardly south east London!
Mitcham is NOT in Surrey, Mitcham is in the LONDON borough of Merton;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitcham,_London,_England

Clapham borders Balham - which borders Tooting - VERY south WEST!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clapham
Clapham also near Dulwich & Herne Hill, SOUTH EAST LONDON:)

South Croydon and Purley are almost at 6 o'clock on the map of London - can't get more SOUTH than that! They may border Surrey, but they're still in Greater London.
South Croydon is South London, but NOT south west London.

So where exactly would you define South WEST London, hmmm? Where YOU live I expect!

I've given you a list of SW London areas above. The dodgy areas are mainly (but not exclusively) bordering south east London, that was my point.

I don't live in London at all (but I did for over 30 years), I live so far into Surrey a few more miles & I would be in Sussex;)

MrsE_2

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

What, and that means they automagically stop being south west? Are you honestly saying you only count areas that are fully surrounded by other SW areas as south west? Might be time you took a little lie down and check to ensure you've had your medication today...

Not at all, I'm saying the areas of south west London that are not very nice also happen to be the areas that boarder south east London.

What I'm saying is apart from the enclave of Dulwich Village - stay away from South East London.

olly300

Thermidor you are arguing with MrsE for the sake of it.

Her posts clearly stated SW London.

Also someone who thinks a place like Wandsworth Common, Putney or Richmond is for the cheaper end of the market clearly is not living in the real world. (Though if you are lucky you would be able to buy a flat probably ex-LA in the price bracket.)

And it's funny that you don't count such areas in your South London rant.

Megarobbie

St00zer wrote: »

Megarobbie

I would never but a ex-local flat, not even to rent out. My view is why should I work hard and earn money to buy a place to live in which I know the next door neighbour is probably being handed it to him/her on a plate for doing naff all?

I would only buy in a private residence where people alike have worked hard to buy their house.

Does anyone know where I can get details of which London Boroughs have the most social housing? I think that is one way I will eliminate areas from my list.

I believe more social housing = more crime and a nightmare area to live in.

The areas that have regenerated and have been really up and coming are the ones where councils have reduced social housing and more rich city folk have moved in ... Islington comes to mind.

There are good and bad council estates, just like there are good and bad private housing. Check them out at different times of the day and look at the people coming out of the flats/houses. If it's youths in hoodies with angry looking dogs, maybe it isn't the best place to move your family to. If it's young couples/families going to the nice clean park across the road, then maybe it's alright.

I know someone with an ex-local authority flat in Westminster and his neighbours include MPs.

Although I suppose you might be better off with hoodies at the minute...

Chinkle

OP I was surprised when you said you already lived in London, as you sound very naive and uninformed, especially about property and London areas. You get what you pay for in London, as everywhere else.

You have a small budget and a big wish list. You can play around on rightmove to see what your money will buy, but the long and short of it is you'll need to make some very serious compromises if you want to buy in the London postcode area or its outskirts.