Buying is £124 a month cheaper than renting

MrRee_2

True, Buyers are doomed to a retirement of repairs, maintenance, horrific boiler explosions, wet rot, dry rot and rat infestations .....

Makes you laugh ..... because a buyer has to repair and maintain it's better to rent for all your working life and then die in a 1 bedroomed council flat ....................................... some people, eh?

J_i_m

Maintenance isn't free for all tenants either, people seem to be forgetting that the vast majority of land lords will be factoring maintenance into the rent rate. They are after-all running a business so will at the very least need to break even over all, and then there's the factor of profit.

jaylee3

Lily-Rose wrote: »

I think as a few have said on here, that comparing renting to buying is somewhat futile, as no 2 situations are the same.

I can understand perfectly, that someone who bought say 20 years ago and before that, could well find their mortgage somewhat lower than what it would be to rent the same property, particularly if they live in or around London (or more or less anywhere down south,) because the rents are very high there.

But as for most of the rest of the country (including where I live - approx 100 miles north of London,) you certainly can get a privately rented 3 or 4 bed house for about £500 to £650 a month. Some places a flat for £350 to £400 a month. These are not bad areas either. [/B]

As for my story; we bought a property back in the late 90s, (we previously rented privately for about 5 to 7 years,) and frankly, we were never happy as homeowners from day one. We were constantly stressed and constantly broke, and much worse off financially than when we were renting, for one reason or another.

There are many issues, in the 2 properties we owned that bled us dry. Some people claim that they do everything themselves and that they have only spend a thousand pound in repairs in 20 years and all that. I find that hard to believe, as we found that a house has an ever-open mouth. We never had any surplus cash when we owned, and often found ourselves in the position of having to take out loans for major repairs and maintenance.

A few people also seem to be under the illusion that social housing is always going to be in a horrible area. Not so at all. Many housing associations have properties in nice areas. All I can think of is that the person(s) saying this live in an area where most social housing is rank.

We are now in social housing (we sold our last property in 2008, then went into private let, and went on the social housing list.) We wanted a bungalow and were finally offered one last year after waiting 5 years on the list. It's in a small rural town and is part of a development that was built for private sale back in the late 1980s. The builder went bankrupt, and a local housing association bought the eleven detached bungalows and six 2-bed houses in this small street. Not surprisingly, people don't leave unless they die, as it is such a beautiful area; rural, and with a small population.

The only social housing for 2 miles are the 17 properties I have just mentioned. And 9 of them have exercised the right-to-buy (back in the late 80s.) So only 8 are social housing now-including ours. We now have a 2-bed detached bungalow in a beautiful area, near woodlands, not too far from the sea, and just £69 per week rent, with an indefinite tenancy.

We envied people MASSIVELY who were in social housing, with their low rents and fast and excellent repairs service, being able to claim housing benefit if they lost their job, and not a care in the world. We pay full rent, but if my husband ends up out of work, we know we need not worry.

Of course, I acknowledge that people who bought more than 2 decades ago in a high rent area, are better off than private renters, but many areas (say more than 40-50 miles north of London,) have properties that are much cheaper to rent. £600 being the average for a 3-bed house where I live. (£400 if it's a 3-bed social housing property.) And as I said, it's not true that all social housing is horrible, and in horrible areas; many are nice homes in nice areas. I think that's just what the people who advocate buying want to believe.

The upshot though is that there is no right or wrong here.

There is no 'one-size fits all,' but the attitude towards renters from a few (not all but a few - one in particular) is rather rude and somewhat obnoxious.

Excellent post. :cool: Particularly the bits I have bolded. And it's true that the people advocating buying are only hearing what they want to hear.

Not EVERYbody ends up in a poxy 1 bed council flat MR REE, no matter how much you like to think they do. Have to say, most of your posts are complete and utter rambling nonsense, you don't appear to be listening to ANYbody's viewpoint unless it tallies with YOURS, and you are not ackowledging things that you don't wish to hear, and that do not fit in with your renter-bashing agenda.

Many people who rent (particularly social housing,) are perfectly happy AND better off than people who buy: even in their pension years. No way are ALL people who have bought their home going to be much better off when they're pensioners than those who rent in social housing. What absolute nonsense!!!

And re; your insistence that all pensioners will be slammed into a 1-bed flat; the poster above said that her housing association property is a detached bungalow in a rural area for less than £70 a week, but you have conveniently chosen to not acknowledge that post at all.

Your claim that buying a house now is much much cheaper that renting is utter, utter nonsense. The amount of crap you have spouted on this thread is literally hilarious. The more I read of your postings, the less I believe what you say and the more I believe you are a WUM. :cool:

And for that reason, I am done on this thread, because I think you are enjoying winding people up with the vacuous crap you are spouting. Carry on with your nonsense. You're looking more crazy with each passing post.

CreditCrunchie

Well we shall certainly feel better off when we have our own thank you very much. A poster above mentioned 11k costs over the years of house ownership - well we are nearing that now in the amount of fees and costs we've incurred over 6/7 years of renting. Renting is WAY more expensive than buying, unless of course you are buying something completely dilapidated!

ukcarper

jaylee3 wrote: »

Excellent post. :cool: Particularly the bits I have bolded. And it's true that the people advocating buying are only hearing what they want to hear.

Not EVERYbody ends up in a poxy 1 bed council flat MR REE, no matter how much you like to think they do. Have to say, most of your posts are complete and utter rambling nonsense, you don't appear to be listening to ANYbody's viewpoint unless it tallies with YOURS, and you are not ackowledging things that you don't wish to hear, and that do not fit in with your renter-bashing agenda.

Many people who rent (particularly social housing,) are perfectly happy AND better off than people who buy: even in their pension years. No way are ALL people who have bought their home going to be much better off when they're pensioners than those who rent in social housing. What absolute nonsense!!!

And re; your insistence that all pensioners will be slammed into a 1-bed flat; the poster above said that her housing association property is a detached bungalow in a rural area for less than £70 a week, but you have conveniently chosen to not acknowledge that post at all.

Your claim that buying a house now is much much cheaper that renting is utter, utter nonsense. The amount of crap you have spouted on this thread is literally hilarious. The more I read of your postings, the less I believe what you say and the more I believe you are a WUM. :cool:

And for that reason, I am done on this thread, because I think you are enjoying winding people up with the vacuous crap you are spouting. Carry on with your nonsense. You're looking more crazy with each passing post.

But you are very lucky to get social housing and the rules are changing and with the bedroom tax you will have to move to a smaller property or pay the extra and new tenant will not necessarily get a lifetime tenancy.


The original post is purely average and as such doesn't mean very much but over a working life you will spend a lot less buying than renting. The rent on my mums HA flat which I must admit is very nice is more than I was paying in mortgage payments on my 4 bed house.


If you are on just the basic pension you will be no better off financial if you own compared to someone in rented accommodation but if you have a small additional pension vie serps or a private pension you will be worse off in rented accommodation as a large part of that additional income will be taken off your housing benefit.

ruggedtoast

I find it hard to think of many ways I would be better off still renting. My savings were making next to nothing in the bank so I put them all into a house deposit.

I now pay £250 less a month in mortgage than I would in rent for the same place, and am making a paper gain per month of a decent amount. Yes its not 'real' money but its a legitimate capital appreciation.

I dont think this is right, and I wish renting wasnt so over priced but pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

MrRee_2

To the poster above who mentions that someone is retired in a multi-bedroomed detached HA bungalow ......... I would be shocked if such places exist - and for £70 a week? Hmmmmmmmm.

Even £70 a week is probably more than paying just maintenance costs if you owned - so, even that unlikely scenario falls short.

It seems buying is always better and always cheaper.

Pixie5740

MrRee wrote: »

To the poster above who mentions that someone is retired in a multi-bedroomed detached HA bungalow ......... I would be shocked if such places exist - and for £70 a week? Hmmmmmmmm.

Even £70 a week is probably more than paying just maintenance costs if you owned - so, even that unlikely scenario falls short.

It seems buying is always better and always cheaper.

It doesn't seem to matter what anyone says you just can't accept that for a number of people buying will not be better than renting.

In an earlier post I pointed out a group of people with interest only mortgages with no way/thought about how the capital will be repaid which you said will only apply to a very small number of people. You'll find that it applies to a larger proportion of home owners that you think. It's a time bomb waiting to go off.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/warning-over-interestonly-mortgage-timebomb-borrowers-face-shortfalls-and-may-even-lose-their-homes-8600021.html

I'd also be interested to see how people feel about having a mortgage when interest rates go up.

I'm not saying that buying is bad, it's just not for everyone.

chucknorris

J_i_m wrote: »

Maintenance isn't free for all tenants either, people seem to be forgetting that the vast majority of land lords will be factoring maintenance into the rent rate. They are after-all running a business so will at the very least need to break even over all, and then there's the factor of profit.

Well yes of course you have a point, but this only happens on the planet Earth, these posters obviously live somewhere else.

ukcarper

Pixie5740 wrote: »

It doesn't seem to matter what anyone says you just can't accept that for a number of people buying will not be better than renting.

In an earlier post I pointed out a group of people with interest only mortgages with no way/thought about how the capital will be repaid which you said will only apply to a very small number of people. You'll find that it applies to a larger proportion of home owners that you think. It's a time bomb waiting to go off.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/warning-over-interestonly-mortgage-timebomb-borrowers-face-shortfalls-and-may-even-lose-their-homes-8600021.html

I'd also be interested to see how people feel about having a mortgage when interest rates go up.

I'm not saying that buying is bad, it's just not for everyone.

Even if the numbers are as high as that article which is debatable taking a loan and not paying it back is not buying a house.

Yes there are a some people who might be better of renting but in the vast majority of cases you will be in a much better position if you own your own home when you retire.

The big problem is that a lot of people will not be able to buy and will have to put up with AST renting.