How much board should I be paying?

nimbo

amberstar wrote: »

When referring to a more civilised way do mean funded by parents?

I personally took that to mean less or no fees (but I am probably wrong)!! At around £1000 a year they were much less prohibitive, and meant less of an impact on a persons future...

Soleil_lune

poet123 wrote: »

Most people get redundancy pay though which would tide the over till the claim was paid. Additionally, many people have MP policies to cover that eventuality. So the reality is that whether in social housing or a homeowner there is a safety net.

If you own your own home you can take in a lodger to help pay the bills. You can't sublet an LA property in the same way without issues arising.

But if you lost your job the arrears wouldn't solely be made up of that.

Ultimately, the safety net is there for all but if you are a homeowner you can explore options that are not open to those who rent. And you have the asset to keep or dispose of when the payments are done.

Horses for courses, but renting is dead money imo if you have other options. Which is why most parents want their kids on the property ladder and will try their best to help them achieve that within the confines of their personal circumstances.

You have a very idealistic view of being a [STRIKE]person with a massive ball and chain around their neck[/STRIKE] mortgage-owner. Not everyone gets a whacking great redundancy payment when they finish a job, and many people are so many 10s of 1000s in debt anyway, that many redundancy payments would probably only pay off one credit card.

IMO renting (esp social housing,) is a MUCH better alternative to buying. And renting ISN'T dead money; many many people in other countries rent long-term. The UK is one of the very few countries in the world that has this silly idea that you're an under-achiever if you don't own your property. What IS this obsession with having to be a homeowner?! It is vastly over-rated...

For a start, with renting you get every last repair done within your rent and never have to worry about forking out. The other week our loo got blocked, and we got someone out within an HOUR and we didn't have to pay a penny for the repair! Would a 'homeowner' have been able to do that? Not a chance! AND it would've cost a fortune for a plumber. Plus if you suddenly become unemployed, housing benefit is paid straightaway. This does not happen if you have a mortgage, and trying to get the insurance to pay out is a joke!

Private let is a minefield I would admit, but I was a homeowner/mortgaged for 18 years, and I have been in private let and now social housing, and me and my other half have never been happier. £300 a month rent, ALL repairs done, instant housing benefit if we ever lose our jobs, no maintenance costs, and we live in housing association property.

The area we live is a very quiet part of town on the fringes of the suburbs with very old houses, very widely spaced, and a small-ish population, and it's lovely. I know some social housing can be a bit rough, but not all of it is, especially the ones owned by housing associations.

I guess we were lucky as we could have ended up with some doghole, but where we are now is the best place we have ever lived. Some people say 'we will have our property paid for by 55/60 when YOU will still be paying rent.' But the thing is, many people in social housing will get their rent covered by housing benefit once they hit pensionable age, AND they will have no repairs and maintenance costs, whereas your maintenance costs will go on forever...

As I said, I have experienced all three: social housing, private let, AND buying, and buying was by far the worst. Never knowing if your mortgage was going to shoot up by a hundred pounds a month, dreading the heating popping and banging and the energy company trying to bully you into a system flush, having to fork out 1000s for a new boiler, multiple 1000s for other repairs. When we look back, we wondered why we tolerated it for so long: we were always on edge, wondering when the next repair was going to be, and worrying constantly.

There was always something to pay for, my OH was scared to have a day or two off as he didn't get paid, and any drop in our salary meant we would struggle to make ends meet. We never had any money, and were always stressed.

And when my OH was made redundant, the unemployment insurance would not pay out, as he had to be claiming unemployent benefit for 3 months! And as he had had a smallish redundancy payout, he couldn't sign on for about 2 months. So the stupid insurance was practically worthless.

I would never be a homeowner/mortgage payer again if my life depended on it. I literally have never been so happy in the situation I am in now. EVERYbody should have the chance of living in social housing.

If people want to buy then fine, that is up to them, but don't look down on people who rent, and make out someone on the property ladder at 24, is somehow better or a higher achiever than someone who rents.

Yes there may be a certain riskiness in renting - with social housing even, with the bedroom tax and all, but it is in no WAY as risky as having a mortgaged property. Maybe many years ago: pre mid 80s, buying was OK, but not now. I would never choose it over renting social housing. Not in this day and age.

Person_one

Social housing was never really going to be an option for me. I'm single, able-bodied, working, no children and not in danger of becoming homeless. There are thousands of people (rightly) ahead of me priority wise, and not enough to go around.

I'm actually a big fan of social housing, but there isn't nearly enough of it, and what there is tends to be in areas with more than share of social problems around here. (Salford/Manchester).

silvercar

Dunroamin wrote: »

Doesn't that rather assume that the parents have a career and a ladder on it?

When I left university (admittedly at the age of 29) I earned far more than either of my parents did (postman and clerk) and I would've done so even if I'd been about 22. I wasn't even in a high earning career either.

In addition, my parents weren't that far from retirement age and that will be the case for many graduates in their early 20s, whose parents had them when they were in their 30s.

Totally accept your points, though I would add that I would have thought that generally, by the age that people have graduate children, they would be managing their budgets and would be used to budgeting to include the fact that they may have their children living at home.

silvercar

thorsoak wrote: »

Once again, my children did NOT contribute towards household expenses whilst at Uni! - they only contributed a proportion of the running costs divided by the number of people in the household which was calculated against their earnings - for maximum of 18-24 months after they left uni whilst saving for their own homes.

But the running costs of the house are decided by the parents in the choice they made when buying/ renting the prbperty eg we have an older property and therefore our utility bills may be higher than the average, to expect our returning graduate to pay one third of the gas bill - when we have chosen the property would be unfair. Also if one child moves out that increases the share of the bills from one fifth to one quarter say - is that fair?

poet123

Soleil_lune wrote: »

You have a very idealistic view of being a [STRIKE]person with a massive ball and chain around their neck[/STRIKE] homeowner. Not everyone gets a whacking great redundancy payment when they finish a job, and many people are so many 10s of 1000s in debt anyway, that many redundancy payments would probably only pay off one credit card.

Having a secure financial position is not related to your housing choice. All of the above can apply to those who rent or buy.

Soleil_lune wrote: »

IMO renting (esp social housing,) is a MUCH better alternative to buying. And renting ISN'T dead money; many many people in other countries rent long-term. The UK is one of the very few countries in the world that has this silly idea that you're an under-achiever if you don't own your property. What IS this obsession with having to be a homeowner?! It is vastly over-rated...

It is the fact that if you rent you are paying for the appreciation of someone else's property, you are restricted to what you can do, you will pay forever and will never have an asset. I don't think it is overrated it is a risk benefit calculation that favours buying for most people.

Soleil_lune wrote: »

For a start, with renting you get every last repair done within your rent and never have to worry about forking out. The other week our loo got blocked, and we got someone out within an HOUR and we didn't have to pay a penny for the repair! Would a 'homeowner' have been able to do that? Not a chance! AND it would've cost a fortune for a plumber. Plus if you suddenly become unemployed, housing benefit is paid straightaway. This does not happen if you have a mortgage, and trying to get the insurance to pay out is a joke!

But you are putting money into your own asset and such repairs are infrequent.

Soleil_lune wrote: »

Private let is a minefield I would admit, but I was a homeowner/mortgaged for 18 years, and I have been in private let and now social housing, and me and my other half have never been happier. £300 a month rent, ALL repairs done, instant housing benefit if we ever lose our jobs, no maintenance costs, and we live in housing association property.

And the prospect of never having an asset to pass onto your kids, or ever finish paying rent, and being at the mercy of government policy. Sounds wonderful ;)but I prefer more autonomy.

Soleil_lune wrote: »

The area we live is a very quiet part of town on the fringes of the suburbs with very old houses, very widely spaced, and a small-ish population, and it's lovely. I know some social housing can be a bit rough, but not all of it is, especially the ones owned by housing associations.

And if the house ever gets too big or policy decrees that you only need one bedroom you may be forced to move to one of those areas.

Soleil_lune wrote: »

I guess we were lucky as we could have ended up with some doghole, but where we are now is the best place we have ever lived. Some people say 'we will have our property paid for by 55/60 when YOU will still be paying rent.' But the thing is, many people in social housing will get their rent covered by housing benefit once they hit pensionable age, AND they will have no repairs and maintenance costs, whereas your maintenance costs will go on forever...

What about those who don't get their rent covered? I imagine most owner occupiers heading for retirement will try to cover all forseeable maintenance costs whilst they are still working or consider downsizing, choose where they want to live, and realise money from their asset.

Soleil_lune wrote: »

As I said, I have experienced all three: social housing, private let, AND buying, and buying was by far the worst. Never knowing if your mortgage was going to shoot up by a hundred pounds a month, dreading the heating popping and banging and the energy company trying to bully you into a system flush, having to fork out 1000s for a new boiler, multiple 1000s for other repairs. When we look back, we wondered why we tolerated it for so long: we were always on edge, wondering when the next repair was going to be, and worrying constantly.

With respect, it sounds as if you were overstretched and not in a financial position to own the house you did. It does not illustrate that renting is a better option as much as it shows that for you a cheaper house would have been easier to fund and that perhaps you could have been more prudent when mortgage shopping and gone for a fixed rate.

Soleil_lune wrote: »

There was always something to pay for, my OH was scared to have a day or two off as he didn't get paid, and any drop in our salary meant we would struggle to make ends meet. We never had any money, and were always stressed.

Again, this is specific to your personal circumstance not a blanket deterrent to home buying per se.

Soleil_lune wrote: »

And when my OH was made redundant, the unemployment insurance would not pay out, as he had to be claiming unemployent benefit for 3 months! And as he had had a smallish redundancy payout, he couldn't sign on for about 2 months. So the stupid insurance was practically worthless.

And you had no idea that was the case until you claimed?

Soleil_lune wrote: »

I would never be a homeowner/mortgage payer again if my life depended on it. I literally have never been so happy in the situation I am in now. EVERYbody should have the chance of living in social housing.

It clearly suits you but for the reasons outlined is not what most people want, they aspire to own their own home and have the autonomy over their living conditions that that brings.

Soleil_lune wrote: »

If people want to buy then fine, that is up to them, but don't look down on people who rent, and make out someone on the property ladder at 24, is somehow better or a higher achiever than someone who rents.

If you are secure in your choice to rent why would it matter if others believe being a home owner is a laudable goal or that those who achieve it through hard work/parental help have done well? To own a home at 24 today you either have to be given a leg up in addition to being disciplined and financially savvy, or a high achiever.

Soleil_lune wrote: »

yes there may be a certain riskiness in renting - with social housing even, with the bedroom tax and all, but it is in no WAY as risky as having a mortgaged property.

I prefer to be in control of where I live and not at the mercy of changing policy or a postcode lottery. Given the choice between renting and buying there is no contest in my mind which is the riskiest for the average person.

I think social housing should be restricted to those who cannot afford to buy, and be available for those who have no other options, which was the original intention.

thorsoak

silvercar wrote: »

But the running costs of the house are decided by the parents in the choice they made when buying/ renting the prbperty eg we have an older property and therefore our utility bills may be higher than the average, to expect our returning graduate to pay one third of the gas bill - when we have chosen the property would be unfair. Also if one child moves out that increases the share of the bills from one fifth to one quarter say - is that fair?

So, the parents should chose a hovel in which to live with their children, in order not to share the costs with adult children who CHOOSE to live en famille ?

Skewed thinking!

As for us, we moved AS A FAMILY into two farm-labourers' cottages which we converted into a family home which was large enough for us and our four children - with a 10 year difference in age from oldest to youngest.

If we subscribed to your arguments, you would have us move every time one of them went to uni! As it is, we moved and downsized once they had all left home and we retired.

Dunroamin

poet123 wrote: »

I think the point is more that whatever their financial position presumably they are living within their means and are not relying on the income from their adult child to make ends meet.

For someone like the OP who is paying for all her own food, toiletries and Sky the difference her presence will make to the overall consumption of the house would not imo amount to £170 pm, or certainly no more than that.

In my experience (having been in this situation with a teenager in the past) buying your own food doesn't include buying all the basics that mum and dad just happen to have hanging around the kitchen freely available, neither do all toiletries include things like loo roll, washing and washing up stuff etc.

When ours left home our utility bills (which admittedly included the phone) went down by about £40 a week, which, with the above extras, wouldn't be covered by the OP at the moment.

Dunroamin

silvercar wrote: »

But the running costs of the house are decided by the parents in the choice they made when buying/ renting the prbperty eg we have an older property and therefore our utility bills may be higher than the average, to expect our returning graduate to pay one third of the gas bill - when we have chosen the property would be unfair. Also if one child moves out that increases the share of the bills from one fifth to one quarter say - is that fair?

That seems quite fair to me, why do you think it isn't?

poet123

Dunroamin wrote: »

In my experience (having been in this situation with a teenager in the past) buying your own food doesn't include buying all the basics that mum and dad just happen to have hanging around the kitchen freely available, neither do all toiletries include things like loo roll, washing and washing up stuff etc.

When ours left home our utility bills (which admittedly included the phone) went down by about £40 a week, which, with the above extras, wouldn't be covered by the OP at the moment.

Really? When my eldest left home I didn't notice a reduction of anything like that and he was permanently plugged in to something!!;)