'We've reached a tipping point' Signs of house price weakness

lisyloo

and someone on this or a similar threads is doing just that in London

Probably me.
We own a home (not commutable unfortauntely) and rent via the business (at approx 30% discount) for short term business use.
There is a risk that our rent might rise or we might have to find somewhere else. At the same time it's a great benefit that if the work dries up we can pretty much walk away.

Some people seem to be very anti-renting without understanding that there are benefits in certain situations.

ukcarper

lisyloo wrote: »

I agree.
It's gallygirl who's saying it's "hardly comparable" not me :-)

Certainly not me.

I'm struggling a little more than you. I can't really see why you'd WANT to rent long term although I can see why the trials and tribulations of life might turn out that way.

Long term there is no argument at all. Buying is cheaper than renting.
If landlords make a profit (which on the whole they do) then buying HAS to be cheaper.
The only way renting can be cheaper is if you go downmarket and rent a hovel in which case you aren't comparing apples with apples.

Not sure why you are quoting my posts when we're in total agreement ???

I quote your post only regarding the validity of my comparison. I'm not sure how much of this thread you have read but my argument is with Crashy's posts. I've read your reason for renting and although I would say your situation is not typical I can follow your arguments.

The reasons why people might prefer to rent long term are not necessarily financial

lisyloo

The reasons why people might prefer to rent long term are not necessarily financial

Could you enlighten me then please.
Why would someone want to pay more money for less security if they don't need the flexibility?

ukcarper

lisyloo wrote: »

Could you enlighten me then please.
Why would someone want to pay more money for less security if they don't need the flexibility?

I agree if you are confidant that you will not need to move in the short to median term and your employment prospects look good it doesn't make sense to rent. But not everybody is that confident and some are reluctant to commit long term.

Crashy_Time

wotsthat wrote: »

At least you're conceding that the rent you pay is far from typical. However, it's far from obvious that even £400 pm can be easily be achieved - you're just ignoring the evidence.

I like the idea people are renting these places because they're saving and avoiding the bubble. More like it's because that's all they can afford and have little choice.



Your £300 pm rental is on a par with a £1m Scottish house?

Are you using this forum to test your stand up routine?

Who said she paid a million for the house? Also I think you know what my rental is by now, you just look daft trying to avoid the reality that BTL has been a janitors job for the last decade and a half up here. Your street/town/ will no doubt be special.

Crashy_Time

lisyloo wrote: »

If a single person (or couple) wants to make that choice then I think that's a perfectly valid choice - although as you say we should make sure we are comparing apples with apples.
Not everyone is prepared to live in sub-standard accomodation or have long commutes. If you have small children or a baby it's not really going to work.
I've lived temporarily in some tiny studios in London with DH. The sort of places where you can't bend down in the shower because there isn't enough room and you have to sit at an angle on the toilet (I'm not kidding) or climb over each other if you need to get out in the night.
I don't mind roughing it temporarily but personally I don't want to live my life like that although I can certainly see why you would if it achieves a long term financial goal.

I have no issues with how others choose to live but we do need to make sure we compare apples with apples and if we're talking about trends in the general population then we need to be realistic about what's acceptable for families e.g. living next door to a crack den in a mouldy hovel isn't going to be acceptable for most people with small children unless they really don't have a choice.

Your experience is tainted by London, I can`t remember ever having substandard accommodation, d!cor yes, space/functioning utilities no, and from this flat I walk to work in 15 minutes. The sad/ironic thing is that families paid 180k for these "hovels" at the peak :rotfl:. My last flat (landlord someone I knew, not RMove/Citylets) was 400 p.m going up to 450 p.m towards the end of my time there, and that was box room, bedroom and separate kitchen, with a large well lit living room. London renting isn`t all renting.

Crashy_Time

gallygirl wrote: »

Hardly comparable though........... i.e. I'd be prepared to live in that one unlike the rental properties .

There is a reason that is 63k though, it is not the best/safest area around. My last flat was walking distance from there, but on the main bus route, close to parks, and a completely different vibe when you walk round the block at night. Although 63k is at least someone accepting the reality of the market and the location.

lisyloo

Your experience is tainted by London

I don't think so.
I've lived most of my life elsewhere and a few months in London.
Yes London does have some especially bad accomodation and it can be dirtier and noisier because of the overcrowding but I can assure you that places like Bristol, Bath, Swindon and pretty much any other place as big as a small town has undesireable parts.

substandard accommodation

I agree with gallygirl that the area itself is much more important that the interior.
If for example it's crime ridden, noisy etc. that's a much bigger issue that you have a lot less control over than getting interior issues fixed.
As long as somewhere is functioning it doesn't really matter than much if kitchen unit or sink enamel is chipped, but if you feel as though you might get knifed on the way home or you can't sleep because of noise and violence then that's a big issue.

London renting isn`t all renting.

I don't really see that London or Edinburgh are anything to do with it really.
There are undesireable parts of any town/city.

walking distance from there, but on the main bus route, close to parks, and a completely different vibe

These are the things that matter to people.
Infrastructure, transport, facilities, "vibe".
Providing you've got the basic functionality, then interior decor is a lot lower down the list of priorities for most people.

Crashy_Time

lisyloo wrote: »

I don't think so.
I've lived most of my life elsewhere and a few months in London.
Yes London does have some especially bad accomodation and it can be dirtier and noisier because of the overcrowding but I can assure you that places like Bristol, Bath, Swindon and pretty much any other place as big as a small town has undesireable parts.



I agree with gallygirl that the area itself is much more important that the interior.
If for example it's crime ridden, noisy etc. that's a much bigger issue that you have a lot less control over than getting interior issues fixed.
As long as somewhere is functioning it doesn't really matter than much if kitchen unit or sink enamel is chipped, but if you feel as though you might get knifed on the way home or you can't sleep because of noise and violence then that's a big issue.



I don't really see that London or Edinburgh are anything to do with it really.
There are undesireable parts of any town/city.



These are the things that matter to people.
Infrastructure, transport, facilities, "vibe".
Providing you've got the basic functionality, then interior decor is a lot lower down the list of priorities for most people.

All fair points, gallygirl seems to want to live in the area where bodies get found lying about after the weekend though. Not long ago the argument on here seemed to be that my average rent of 400 p.m over quite a few years was impossible, or a lie. Now that it is obvious that I pay this amount we seem to be moving to discussing areas and d!cor One day this thread will get back to the original topic, Have we reached a tipping point for UK property prices?

ukcarper

Crashy_Time wrote: »

All fair points, gallygirl seems to want to live in the area where bodies get found lying about after the weekend though. Not long ago the argument on here seemed to be that my average rent of 400 p.m over quite a few years was impossible, or a lie. Now that it is obvious that I pay this amount we seem to be moving to discussing areas and d!cor One day this thread will get back to the original topic, Have we reached a tipping point for UK property prices?

What are the areas like of the flats you linked to.