Buying a Chalet...

PasturesNew

Generali wrote: »

TBH I'd happily spend $15-20k on a mobile home to live in for 2 years to get the Generali finances sorted out, especially if I thought I could get a significant chunk of the money back at the end.

That's the calculation I keep trying to make fit.

I figure:
£10k cost to buy
£6k rent for two years
£6k resale price
£1k cost to sell (you have to give the owners 10%)

The above figures would mean I'd be 'renting' for £11k over 2 years. However, the fly in the ointment is I can't find one for £10k (more like £20-30k) and the whole issue of effectively being not caught living on a holiday site.

If only somebody could give me the tip off about which sites it's OK/you can get away with it. I do know one where you can live/get away with it for 10 months, but they have short licenses, so by the time you're buying in at £16k it's only got about 2-3 years left. I've even been to that site and checked it out/spoken to them - and done the maths. It works out at £700/month for the months I could live in it -v- the £600 or so I am trying to "save" by not renting instead. Even when renting you have to factor in other costs: credit checks, deposit paid/potentially lost, checking in/out fees etc.

lostinrates

PasturesNew wrote: »

I'm amazed you were amazed. When I was at school I had friends who lived in them. Then, when I got to 30 and still couldn't afford even a studio flat in my town I managed to get myself a cheap/tatty one myself and bought it.

Mine was OK, except the door froze up in winter so I had to kick my way out in the winter and try not to put my foot through the glass window. And the gas had to be kept on 24/7 in the depths of winter, which cost £35/week at the time. And I was nearly evicted as I had a tiny water drip/leak, so I used to turn the water off when not using it - only turned it on to wash up or refill the cistern or to fill the bath.

Most site owners are little Hitlers and will literally 'patrol' a site - pointing out to you every tiny problem they see. I had to employ the site owner's gardener just to ensure I got my edges 100% straight/perfect so she didn't issue me with an eviction letter.

Yep, I was amazed. I knew gypsies who lived in settled mobile homes but not other people before that. I first noticed a park home in a SW town when I was 18. I think part of the amazement is that trailer living is referred to as an American issue and never discussed as a British one, and yet clearly is.

Loughton_Monkey

Generali wrote: »

TBH I'd happily spend $15-20k on a mobile home to live in for 2 years to get the Generali finances sorted out, especially if I thought I could get a significant chunk of the money back at the end.

We'll get there in the end anyway but it would be a helpful kickstart.

In Principle, buying such a 'mobile home' [Contradiction in terms] is an ideal form of equity release. You downsize your main home to a small bungalow, and then later you sell that and shove £25K into a depreciating asset that will last your lifetime.

In Michigan, USA I believe there is a state law that says "..and when you are 70, thou shalt sell up and move to a mobile home park in Florida, where thou shalt play shuffleboard all day, and drive around the town at 14 miles an hour, at which time it is illegal to look into thy rear view mirrors...."

The trouble in UK, though, is finding a site pleasant enough to live on. Some of the ones in Essex make a Council Tower Block look positively inviting.

PasturesNew

lostinrates wrote: »

Yep, I was amazed. I knew gypsies who lived in settled mobile homes but not other people before that. I first noticed a park home in a SW town when I was 18. I think part of the amazement is that trailer living is referred to as an American issue and never discussed as a British one, and yet clearly is.

Trailer living in the US is for poor people, rough places mostly.

In the UK mobile home sites are respectable. You tend to need more money to be living in one than, say, a renter. Mobile homes can only be bought with personal loans or cash, and they require larger deposits. Therefore, for most people, most of the time, it's easier/cheaper to get a mortgage on a 'proper house' than on a mobile home.

You can't live in them forever - now the law says they just have to be tidy or you can be kicked off, but residential vans used to have to be removed after 20 years...leaving you homeless as you couldn't afford to buy a new one for the plot from the owner.

You pay for the home, you pay a pitch fee (£3k/year for a holiday home isn't unusual), you pay 10% to the site owner when you sell (often more for holiday homes). It's not a cheap option... and the rules are different/harsher than many other places.

movilogo

Buy a mobile home instead You can then roam around based on where you work.

PasturesNew

movilogo wrote: »

Buy a mobile home instead You can then roam around based on where you work.

I looked into that, then realised how impractical it would be driving a big thing everywhere. It'd limit the places you could work too. And, you can't get a landline/broadband, or post delivered.

I also liked the idea until I saw the price of a half decent one. Not cheap! And then there are yearly checks for safety: water, electrics.

Overall, in the hands of an incompetent, it didn't stack up.

movilogo

I looked into that, then realised how impractical it would be driving a big thing everywhere. It'd limit the places you could work too. And, you can't get a landline/broadband, or post delivered.

Phone = use mobile
Broadband = use dongle
Post = receive them at office or at friend's place

Small? We are comparing it with a chalet! A decent motorhome will cost ~ £15k.

PasturesNew

movilogo wrote: »

Phone = use mobile
Broadband = use dongle
Post = receive them at office or at friend's place

Small? We are comparing it with a chalet! A decent motorhome will cost ~ £15k.

Where I live, it can be hard/impossible to get a mobile phone signal. A lot of sites where one could park up wouldn't have a signal.

Same for dongles - signals are even weaker/non existant, especially as sites won't be in towns.

Post - not everybody has an office or friends nearby.

It's all a bit hobo-esque and realistically there are few it could work for.

busiscoming2

My cousins (bro & sis) bought a chalet together as their first home, they lived in it but the conditions of the site they lived on meant they had to leave for two months of the year, so they went home and had their holidays then. It worked for them and enabled them to both go onto buy houses.

I have wondered why more people dont do it, and see no problem with it.

PasturesNew

busiscoming2 wrote: »

My cousins (bro & sis) bought a chalet together as their first home, they lived in it but the conditions of the site they lived on meant they had to leave for two months of the year, so they went home and had their holidays then. It worked for them and enabled them to both go onto buy houses.

I have wondered why more people dont do it, and see no problem with it.

Planning permission for most sites will not allow it. They have large contracts with different clauses in. Some say even owners cannot stay more than 4 weeks in a row. Others say you have to provide ongoing evidence (council tax bill usually) that your main residence is elsewhere.

Most site owners will enforce it - if they don't then somebody will grass them up to the council and the council will enforce it.

If a site does turn a blind eye, it's all hush hush, so you'd never know which site did turn a blind eye - and if they're grassed up it could change instantly you receive your Enforcement notice from the Council. The council round here issue a lot of enforcement notices.... I was eyeing up a site just last week wondering if they turned a blind eye, a quick google showed me two residents that month had been issued with enforcement notices to quit using it as their home.