3 different types of property - which is best?

indecisive82

Hi all, as the username suggests I can't make up my mind between 3 different properties and hoping for some opinions from the folks on here! I'm an FTB and am considering all of the below, but can't come to a decision. I'm in the south east in a pretty popular commuter town near London:

1)Large 2 bed flat in period building - this one is v near town centre/station/the big local employers but on a fairly quiet street given how central it is. It's a large old Victorian house which has been divided into flats - nice enough looking building but not something particularly "special". No outside space.

2) Smaller 2 bed flat in new build property on the same street as number 1 - costs around 5% more. No outside space. This is on the much busier end of the street which can be a bit of a rat run for traffic (most of the traffic turns off before getting to property 1).

3) 2 bed terrace about a mile further out of town in what is generally considered to be a slightly rough area, although not terrible and may well be "up and coming". Around 10% more than property 1. Small back garden.

For me personally I would prefer to live in the location of 1/2, but I'm a little worried about resale in the future (I will probably want to move again in around 5 years) and that people will prefer to buy a freehold property rather than a leasehold? I can't afford a house in the town centre area so would have to go further out to get a freehold property. Is this a valid concern?

If I do go for a flat, do people have a view on whether a newer property or an older conversion is the way to go? I can't figure out which is likely to be more desirable on resale - the period flat is significantly larger, but of course the new build is a bit "cleaner" and tidier, especially in the communal areas.

Sorry, this is a bit of a ramble - but would welcome any thoughts or advice!

Thanks in advance :beer:

MisterB1959

you should have included a fourth option - none of the above.


if you cant decide and work out what is best for you, then you shouldn't proceed, you need to be 100% certain and committed to make such a massive investment.


personally I would NOT entertain anything where it involved a maintenance/service contract of any sort. my daughters went from just over 1k to just over 2k in less than 2 years - its a massive amount to find on top of your mortgage and is more likely to put buyers off than anything else


two bed terrace sounds the safest bet, but if in any doubt - option 4 !

indecisive82

hello, thanks for the reply - unfortunately the only really option 4 is not to buy at all - the market seems to be booming here and after looking for months and being outbid on a number of properties (many of which went for well over asking price) things seem to be moving rapidly out of my reach so it feels like I either buy now or not at all if you see what I mean?

Interesting point re service charges possibly going up etc. This is one of my concerns when it comes to resale - that people will be put off. At the moment the charge is fairly reasonable, but as you say I guess it could go up in future. I've been trying to weigh up whether the service charge is likely to be significantly more than the cost of maintaining a house if I go for option 3, and at 2k a year I guess it would be unless I was very unlucky with the house.

So perhaps option 3 is more sensible in many ways - I think it's a bit of a head/heart dilemma as I love the idea of the shorter walk to the station (I commute to London for work), but the longer walk would probably do me good!

Oh dear, I hate making decisions......

Emmylou_2

Is 3 freehold? That one. That way you're in total control of all the costs/timing of repairs and renewals (roof/windows) etc.

Lioness_Twinkletoes

Freehold, without a doubt. I work in the leasehold industry and would never, ever buy a leasehold property.

slopemaster

Buy the freehold house.
Is it Newtown?

questionss

I would consider the house or possibly the period flat. I wouldn't entertain the new build on a busy road.

xylophone

I'd go for the house.

Fraise

indecisive82 wrote: »

Hi all, as the username suggests I can't make up my mind between 3 different properties and hoping for some opinions from the folks on here! I'm an FTB and am considering all of the below, but can't come to a decision. I'm in the south east in a pretty popular commuter town near London:

1)Large 2 bed flat in period building - this one is v near town centre/station/the big local employers but on a fairly quiet street given how central it is. It's a large old Victorian house which has been divided into flats - nice enough looking building but not something particularly "special". No outside space.

2) Smaller 2 bed flat in new build property on the same street as number 1 - costs around 5% more. No outside space. This is on the much busier end of the street which can be a bit of a rat run for traffic (most of the traffic turns off before getting to property 1).

3) 2 bed terrace about a mile further out of town in what is generally considered to be a slightly rough area, although not terrible and may well be "up and coming". Around 10% more than property 1. Small back garden.

For me personally I would prefer to live in the location of 1/2, but I'm a little worried about resale in the future (I will probably want to move again in around 5 years) and that people will prefer to buy a freehold property rather than a leasehold? I can't afford a house in the town centre area so would have to go further out to get a freehold property. Is this a valid concern?

If I do go for a flat, do people have a view on whether a newer property or an older conversion is the way to go? I can't figure out which is likely to be more desirable on resale - the period flat is significantly larger, but of course the new build is a bit "cleaner" and tidier, especially in the communal areas.

Sorry, this is a bit of a ramble - but would welcome any thoughts or advice!

Thanks in advance :beer:

Hi

I've lived in various properties, houses and flats, so here's my tuppence.


Number 1 property. Cons: no outside space - and you've mentioned that a few times, so it sounds like something you desire. Tbh, I would need to have my own private garden, and it's definitely a selling point. Everyone needs some outside space.

Not sure about the service charge or lease on this property, so can't comment. But as it's just one large Victorian house it's unlikely to have a high service charge. If there's only 4 flats or so, and no communal areas - which Victorian conversions don't usually have - the service charge shouldn't be too much. Have you asked the EA how much it is? If the roof is in good condition and you're all only responsible for cleaning/repairing gutters annually, unblocking drains if needed and decorating the exterior every 10 years or so, you shouldn't be paying more than around £40 a month each flat. That's ample, especially as Victorian conversions are usually self-managed between all leaseholders/shareholders, thus not needing to waste money on a managing agent.

Check how long the lease is. If it's a short one it will cost you to renew, but if to something like 999 years old it's as good as freehold. Some Victorian conversions are sold as share if freehold along with the lease, so you're wearing both hats so to speak.

If you find its all hunky dory, I'd go for a period flat with all the features and large rooms over a new build any day.


Number 2. Cons: new build,which usually means a premium and takes years to recoup what you've overpaid. Rooms are not solid and they're usually Tinky little boxes. No character, and if it's a block chances are you'll have a managing agent who might charge silly amounts, you have no chance of buying the freehold, either - unlike the Victorian conversion where you can do after two years.

The road is busy - big no no. Noise, air quality. Nope. Wouldn't entertain it.

Number 3. Cons: further out of town and more rundown. Remember, location is very important. Agents live saying a place is up and coming, but sometimes they can take take 20 years to get there.....

Although no service charges, you will be responsible for all repairs, and whilst that's a good thing, some people don't want the hassle, especially if some of the jobs are costly, although a surveyors report should you warn you if there's any issues, such as new rid needed etc.

Pros: you have outside space, which is always nice. And you have the freehold too.

Before I forget, someone mentioned about service charges suddenly rising out the blue. ,managing agents do NOT have the right to increase charges willy billy. Some may try it on, but all you need do is take them to the First Tier Tribunal (very easy and inexpensive), and in most cases the agent is ordered to lower the charges, sometimes LESS than what it was originally. They have to show their accounts, invoices, and if it seems they've overcharged they will get fined and struck off. You can refuse to pay, and you can insist on self-managing, you're the owner of your property - not them. They're working for you. Some people forget this.

Managing agents are often sharks, and it's money for old rope calling up a builder to clear a gutter, then charging you £100 for the phone call!! They're a total rip off. Yes, is to a large estate an agent is essential, but they still have to work in accordance with the lease, and they CANNOT overcharge. The First Tier Tribunal has put paid to that...



So, if I were you, I'd check out how long the lease is in first property, if you have a share of the freehold or share of the company that owns the freehold (same thing...) and what condition property us in, and what the maintenance fees are.

If not that one I'd go for,the house, if it's in fairly good rider and the road isn't too rough.

sniggings

it's not Location Location Location, there are more than 3 options.

You don't mention what floor the flats are on? I would never ever buy anything but a top floor flat, noise could be a real problem.

Flats always sell, as long as the lease is long.

Look for a top floor flat, and check out the inside sound proofing, road noise can be lived with and steps can be made to fix it, not so easy with in side noise.

Fraise

sniggings wrote: »

it's not Location Location Location, there are more than 3 options.

You don't mention what floor the flats are on? I would never ever buy anything but a top floor flat, noise could be a real problem.

Flats always sell, as long as the lease is long.

Look for a top floor flat, and check out the inside sound proofing, road noise can be lived with and steps can be made to fix it, not so easy with in side noise.

It certainly IS location, location, location, everyone knows that,

Why do you think people pay hundreds of thousands more to live in Greater London and the south east? It's location, location, location ever time.

As for flats and noise, it's very rare now to suffer noise problems in flats. New builds are built to strict regulations to ensure noise control.

Council properties are built the same way too.

Conversions also are converted according to building regulations, and they have to lay sound insulation and proofing, so it doesn't matter which floor you're on. When you go up to Central London and look at the hundreds of super apartment blocks overlooking the Thames, some of them are 40 floors high. And not everyone lives in the penthouse. I know for FACT you can't hear a pin drop from above in those flats, such is the noise insulation.

In fact, Ive heard more noise coming from houses next door, and I'm talking about detached. Some of those new builds with the thin walls are paper thin...you can hear your next door neighbours snoring.

IF you were to buy a flat that had noise problems, it's far easier to have insulation and soundproofing fitted what you can't change is the street you're on. If you're in a busy high road there's sweet fanny Adams you can do about the noisy traffic. I would NEVER live next to a busy main raid or dual carriageway..that would be a nightmare.

At least if you're on a quiet road you can get some peace and quiet.