buy a house or a flat?

bobby_davro_2

Hi there,
I'm a first time buyer, but hoping to buy a 3 bed property over the next few months with the idea of renting out the other 2 rooms.

Iv'e seen lots of different properties and for about 130k i can either:

• buy a 3 bed house in a so-so area, where renting the other rooms would be possible but not automatic.
• Or i can buy a 3 bed flat in a nice area outside of town where the rooms would rent easily.

Can you think of a major advantage of either of these 2 options, if a crash occurs would my money be better invested in a house than a flat?

Any advice welcome.

Thanks

Bogof_Babe

I'd go for a freehold house rather than a leasehold flat, if this is relevant in your situation.

Also if the flat is out of town it might be harder to find tenants. A flat is unlikely to have room for three cars to park, which could be the case if you and your tenants need to commute into town.

november

I'd say house also. You can let the rooms in a house or flat but if you ever want to re-sell a 3 bed family home widens the market more than a flat. We have a 3 bed 'family' need and I wouldn't buy/rent a flat as I like a garden.

cwcw

I would say that the area was the most important factor in reselling. When we were looking at properties, we considered flats in good areas and houses in average areas to fit in with our budget. The flat we bought had 2 other bidders and sold within 10 days of going on the market. Other flats in decent areas also sell quickly, but some of the houses in the average areas we were considering around 4 months ago are still for sale now.

If it was a flat or a house in the same area, then obviously the house would be the better option, but for a flat in a decent area Vs house in an average or not so good area, I would go with the flat every time.

HugoSP

Have a good look at the so so areas.

Vet them properly - schools ameanities crime rates etc.......

Also, look to see how many properties have skips outside them. A lot of renovation work going on in the street smacks of smart money being spent.

Personally I would go with the house all things being equal.

But factor in the costs of paying the maintenance charges ground rent as well as just the mortgate. A friend of mine was faced with the same dilemma and chose the house as despite it being a few grand more to buy, was actually cheaper to finance than the flat.

Areas were the same quality.

zain

I think it has got to be a house- having owned a flat and messed around with a lease to get share of freehold.

cattie

As somebody who in the past owned flats close to the centre of London, with spare rooms rented out, I would say if the rental aspect is important to you to pay the mortgage & bills then go for whatever will appeal to renters.

A spacious flat in a good area will always find a buyer & lots of younger people prefer flats over houses. Many see houses as something you move into when you're ready to settle down & have kids. Also the better location may bring you a higher rent, so this could be something to consider.

For me now living in a house in a suburb of London, finding lodgers isn't as easy as it was & I sometimes have a room empty. Also there's a big decrease in the rent I can get compared to when I was more central.

sm9ai

If your concerned about a possible housing crash then go for a house. Most Flats will be completely worthless if prices crash(Just look at how flooded the markets are with flats already! (http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/article.aspx?articleid=1448458) If prices crash all these would be ditched instantly!). Houses will at least retain some value.

brasso

sm9ai wrote:

If your concerned about a possible housing crash then go for a house. Most Flats will be completely worthless if prices crash(Just look at how flooded the markets are with flats already! (http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/article.aspx?articleid=1448458) If prices crash all these would be ditched instantly!). Houses will at least retain some value.

With respect, to blithely say that "most Flats will be completely worthless if prices crash", isn't a helpful response. The source you quote seems to be a pressure group for social housing, and is a vested interest on the bear side. Even then, I don't see anything in that article to back your claim. It's pointing out that some BTL investors are choosing not to have tenants in flats because they think they'll be easier to sell if they're kept in pristine condition. Nothing to do with the intrinsic desirability of flats over houses.

Property -- whether house or flat -- will appeal to different people in different circumstances depending on a whole range of factors like part of the country, particular location within a town, transport links and amenities, development potential and so on. Older people with families may favour a house with a garden while younger people will prefer the convenience and ease of maintenance of a flat. A well appointed flat in a great part of town is likely to keep its value better than a dismal house in a grotty suburb.

You can't generalise.