Take cover! The housing market is heading for a bloody and protracted crash!

RenovationMan

shortchanged wrote: »

However when coming to sell, Bill's house was found to be suffering from subsidence and he had not spent a penny on any renovations over the years and the house was nothing more than a shed with a roof. So unfortunatley he got nowhere near the £100K premium on the offer he was expecting. Shame.

So he sold it for what he bought it for 25 years ago and yet still enjoyed security of tenure, cheaper 'rental' payments and cheaper utility bills over all that time. Hurrah!

Thrugelmir

RenovationMan wrote: »

True, but then let's not go the other way and say that a homeowner has to put a new roof on their house every 10 years and buy a new central heating boiler every 3 years.

In 25 years. Will replace double glazing, kitchen bathroom, carpeting, decorate a few times. Replace the built in white goods. After 25 years boiler will need replacing too.

If he doesn't then property won't show a £100k gain on original purchase price.

The other brother may choose to rent a smaller property and invest in a pension with the smaller outgoing he has. Scenario changes entirely.

leereni

I think the property market is being kept bouffant, largely due to inflated prices in London. This is by foreign investors or people coming here with large bundles of cash. I live and work in central/west and west London. It's amazing how many more of these new blocks of flats are being built. They range from about £200,000 upwards. In some of the average areas they can cost about £300,000 for an average 2 bedroom.

While people like me have to rent because I can't get a big enough deposit to buy outright, my taxes are being used to prop up the market so that those people with property empires can have their luxury life. Don't know if anyone saw cowboy builders last night. Landlord I think they said was Tahir Khaliq was having some luxury life in the south of France using his half share in a private jet, whilst his tenants lived in damp, fungus invested houses.

Don't really want to say this, but it's about time they increased the interest rates so that people with properties renting them out are forced to sell.

Generali

leereni wrote: »

Don't really want to say this, but it's about time they increased the interest rates so that people with properties renting them out are forced to sell.

Who would people that want/need to rent do then?

I rented for years in the UK and had a mix of good bad and middling landlords. TBH the best was probably the last one. He owned a newsagents next door and was happy to do any maintenance that needed doing and was fine with us doing stuff to the house as long as we didn't trash it.

It was after the deposit rules came in so there was no hassle getting the deposit back from him at the end either.

The only thing that is needed IMO is a little more security of tenure so people can enforce their contractual rights against landlords. TBH the problem isn't the laws around dodgy LLs so much as their application.

leereni

Well I'm not well up on laws around landlords but I know from experience it's best to rent from a housing association.

All these private landlords have done is cream profits from other peoples genuine hard work. We lost things in this country when immigration opened up to eastern Europe. If there weren't enough housing to go round before then with so many more now, it's almost a fight to get moved up the pecking order.

How about private landlords don't buy more properties or sell the ones they have which inevitably will lower the prices making buying more affordable.

BTW I'm not suggesting those developers who build from scratch with those who buy existing ones and just rent them out together. Those developers who build from scratch from reputable companies such barrats and redrow I'm all in favour of. I have a disgust for the ones who, having bought 10 new properties from proper developers then decide to rent them out to people who can't get a big enough deposit because the prices are super inflated.

RenovationMan

Thrugelmir wrote: »

In 25 years. Will replace double glazing, kitchen bathroom, carpeting, decorate a few times. Replace the built in white goods. After 25 years boiler will need replacing too.

If he doesn't then property won't show a £100k gain on original purchase price.

The other brother may choose to rent a smaller property and invest in a pension with the smaller outgoing he has. Scenario changes entirely.

He has hardwood windows, they can last hundreds of years, as can be seen in many listed buildings. The house he bought had hardwood, sanded floors that he just had to oil every 5 years or so.

If he didn't make £100k, how much did he make? Are you trying to suggest that the maintenance on his house over 25 years would cost £100k?

Really?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Thrugelmir wrote: »

In 25 years. Will replace double glazing, kitchen, bathroom,

Entirely depends on the house.

A Victorian house in a conservation area with wooden sash windows may never have them replaced. Just serviced and repaired as needed.

Likewise a good and original style tiled bathroom with a conservative style would not necessarily need to be replaced within 25 years, although you'd almost certainly update some items periodically.

Kitchen, perhaps, as most kitchens would need replaced every 20-30 years. But also, perhaps not worth replacing before sale as so many people just rip them out and put their own in when they buy a house.

carpeting, decorate a few times. Replace the built in white goods. After 25 years boiler will need replacing too.

Agreed, but all inexpensive.

If he doesn't then property won't show a £100k gain on original purchase price.

No, but it would still show an 85K gain or so.

The other brother may choose to rent a smaller property and invest in a pension with the smaller outgoing he has. Scenario changes entirely.

What an absurd statement.

If you're going to rent a smaller place, you could buy a smaller place. Either way, the cost of rent will far exceed the cost of mortgage payments for a comparable place over 25 years.

There is simply no credible scenario where renting beats buying, even I/O, over 25 years.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

RenovationMan wrote: »

He has hardwood windows, they can last hundreds of years, as can be seen in many listed buildings. The house he bought had hardwood, sanded floors that he just had to oil every 5 years or so.

Yep.

I don't like carpets, I tend to have tiled floors in kitchen and bathroom and hardwood floors in the rest of the house. I've got no idea how long they'll last, but it'll be measured in lifetimes, not decades.

My 2nd house has modern double glazing, but my first house has sash windows that have been there well over 100 years.

My parents house has an oak kitchen (as in real wood, not veneer over MDF) and it's 40 years old already, but still looks great. It'll easily last another 40 years or more with the odd hinge repair. They did recently replace the handles on all the doors. Must have cost a whopping £50.

Likewise a friend of mine has an old roll top bath and period toilet/sink that he bought from a reclamation yard 25 years ago to replace a horrible 70's suite. They'll last his lifetime and then some, and you'd have to be mad to replace those sorts of things with some current fad items in a Victorian house.

For most things in a house, particularly an older house, do it once, do it right, and it'll last a lifetime.

There is a constant over-estimation of the real costs to maintain a house on this board. The reality is if you buy a well maintained house, then preventative maintenance costs peanuts. And if you avoid becoming a victim of fashion with kitchen/bathroms, they should last a lifetime.

Graham_Devon

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Huge number of assumptions. Owner never moves , has no maintenance costs, same job for 25 years. Paints a picture to portray a view. Not real life.

And lives in a victiorian house with solid wood everything that was already there when they bought it and they never want to do a thing to modernise the house.

Renoman off all people should know about maintenance costs of such properties.

ukcarper

Where I am a 3-bed house would be £180k to buy (£1050 a month 25 years at 5%) or £1000 a month rent.

If rent increase in line with inflation at say 2% over 25 years you would pay £385k in rent.

If mortgage rate increased to 6% after 2 years then averaged that for term of mortgage you would pay £345k.

So £40k towards maintenance and of coarse you have a house at the end.

If mortgage was interest only repayments would total £258k giving you £127k towards maintenance. If house only increased at half inflation it would be worth £230k giving you £50k equity.