"Homeowners" who can't afford to be "homeowners"

Angelic

I'd love to live in a white house one day so thanks for the tip!

PasturesNew

Angelic wrote: »

I'd love to live in a white house one day so thanks for the tip!

OK, time for...

Top Tip 2: Don't paint your house white ... it picks up particles from passing vehicles and looks shabby REALLY quickly. What DOES look smart though is a good magnolia/cream, with white windowsills.

Orpheo

lynzpower wrote: »

Why not, these pose the biggest risk to health and welfare of many vulnerable people.

Why shouldnt they take responsibility for the death -trap properties they put on the market, at the bottom end ( eg dodgy hmos, crap bedsits with unsafe facilities etc)

Why should we care about the odd owner occupier who might have to take out a loan for a new central heating system instead of this massive group that ruin things for the good LL'S and threaten public health?

I agree with you entirely. I just didn't want my post to be about that.

Orpheo

Davesnave wrote: »

I think you have been looking at the wrong houses, or the cheapest ones.

FTBs struggle at one end of the spectrum, and they always did. Eventually, inflation comes to their rescue.

Not at all. At no point did I suggest that every house that I viewed was like this, just some. These houses are often marketed at the same price or sometimes higher than comparable houses that have been very well maintained. Conversely there are cheap houses that are superbly fitted and maintained, they are just in the wrong location. The omission or manipulation of the facts from EA descriptions and trick photogaphy often covers these things up. If only vendors and EAs were completely honest from the outset, then the number of viewings that turn out to be a total waste of mine and the vendor's time (but no doubt a +1 on the EAs viewing figures target spreadsheet) would be significantly reduced.

The first house I ever bought, while not a fixer-upper, needed redecorating througought, new floor coverings throughout, a new ceiling in the kitchen, and some minor structural repair - and the vendor's were living like this. But here's the thing... that was all reflected in the price that I paid for it and all the work that I did on it was paid for without borrowing.

Your post, and this, my response is largely irrelevent to my OP which is concerning the issue of people buying a property and not being able to afford to maintain it. If you are simply letting your house fall down around you in spite of the fact that you can afford to maintain it then you are either slovenly and lazy or depressed.

chucky

Orpheo wrote: »

These houses are often marketed at the same price or sometimes higher than comparable houses that have been very well maintained. Conversely there are cheap houses that are superbly fitted and maintained, they are just in the wrong location. The omission or manipulation of the facts from EA descriptions and trick photogaphy often covers these things up.

why are you surprised by this?

Orpheo

phil_b wrote: »

I think the costs of maintaining a property are way overblown by those who highlight them. They really arent that bad and you can get replacement stuff cheaply enough on ebay in many cases.

I think the costs of maintaining a property are often downplayed by those who aren't paying attention to all of the things that they are paying for as a mortgagee. In my experience, the annual cost of renting is cheaper, you just don't benefit from HPI in boom times.

phil_b wrote: »

Also, a lot of general maintenance/decorating stuff can be done by the owner with a little effort, motivation and competence. Sadly many seem to lack those things though.

People are entitled to not be competent at DIY, do what you are good at, earn money and pay others to do what they are good at. Lack of motivation to maintain your house is either laziness, carelessness or mental illness. Frailty and disability excepted.

phil_b wrote: »

The only issue that would really catch me out financialy would be the roof caving in perhaps... but that doesnt happen often. I think I could deal with most other things without hammering the bank balance.

Then you have your bases more or less covered. :T

Orpheo

chucky wrote: »

why are you surprised by this?

Who is surprised?

You ask this as if you have found a genius question that bebunks my entire position. Well, captain of the debating society...

I am certainly not surprised, merely aware. Just as I am aware that owning a property implies a cost for maintenance.

If your house for sale is identical to the house for sale across the street, except for the fact that yours is poorly maintained and the house across the street is superbly maintained and you are selling at the same price then ultimately your house is not competitive. To be honest I couldn't care less, don't be surprised when I choose to buy the house across the street.

chucky

Orpheo wrote: »

Who is surprised?

You ask this as if you have found a genius question that bebunks my entire position. Well, captain of the debating society...

get the chips off your shoulders - they're weighing you down.

Orpheo wrote: »

If your house for sale is identical to the house for sale across the street, except for the fact that yours is poorly maintained and the house across the street is superbly maintained and you are selling at the same price then ultimately your house is not competitive. To be honest I couldn't care less, don't be surprised when I choose to buy the house across the street.

all pretty obvious right?

that's exactly why you get surveys done not just mortgage valuations to identify everything you need to know about the property.

Orpheo

chucky wrote: »

get the chips off your shoulders - they're weighing you down.

Again with the keen-edge of conversational wit there.

chucky wrote: »

all pretty obvious right?

...followed by the stating of the obvious:

chucky wrote: »

that's exactly why you get surveys done not just mortgage valuations to identify everything you need to know about the property.

Now you have simply left me bewildered as to what the point of your posting at all was? To ask me if I'm surprised? To tell me something I already know? To be rhetorical? To tell me I'm chippy because I called you on the fact that you asked a question which wasn't a question, but instead an attempt to put my argument in a position of your choice?

Make your point.

chucky

Orpheo wrote: »

Make your point.

if there were no point you would not have posted two replies already...

Orpheo wrote: »

Now you have simply left me bewildered

it seems like that is not a hard thing to do at all

Orpheo wrote: »

To tell me something I already know? To be rhetorical? To tell me I'm chippy because I called you on the fact that you asked a question which wasn't a question, but instead an attempt to put my argument in a position of your choice?

the gem was that the less well maintained properties are being put on the market at the same price as other properties that are better maintained. i'm still to decide whether you qualify for visionary status or someone that states the obvious...

the market itself amongst other things dictates what sells not the condition of the property - people will always buy less maintained properties because they see value not the value that you see. it's all subjective.