Renting in your 40's and staring into the abyss

chucknorris

mayonnaise wrote: »

From her blog:

Are you sure that wasn't from ruggedtoast's blog?

Sapphire

Sapphire wrote: »

I agree that property in London is ridiculously expensive. It's absurd that a situation has been allowed to develop where property is considered to be something to be traded by foreign buyers, who buy it up like sweets. I also think the situation is contributing to the destruction of our capital city, through the throwing up of utterly vile huge buildings filled with so-called 'luxury apartments' meant for buying by foreign investors, who then sit on them and don't even let them out. The oft-repeated phrase 'we are building more homes' now fills me with trepidation, since most of it appears to result in such investment property, not 'homes'. The focus by the government on property as a source of wealth is also very foolish, in my view, since it takes away focus on other parts of the economy that should be developed to create a well-balanced situation for the future.

For those who may be interested, I've just noticed that there was an interesting article in yesterday's London Evening Standard, which echoes many of my thoughts on what is happening in London. Here's the link:

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/simon-jenkins-proof-that-the-city-and-the-mayor-dont-care-about-the-skyline-10404180.html

The article concludes with:

'I am convinced that one day the “buy-to-leave” towers now rising without let or hindrance along the Thames will be the slums of London. When the bubble bursts, the strip from Bermondsey through Lambeth to Vauxhall, Nine Elms and Battersea will slide down market into decay. Their Arab financiers will just walk away. London will be left as Shelley’s desert of “vast and trunkless legs of stone” which some public body will have to maintain.'

'Cramming ever more workers into the heart of London, packing them onto the Tube and driving up house prices has to be stupid. Indulging the City of London with towers so it can compete with Canary Wharf, like Singapore versus Kuala Lumpur, is not just bad planning, it is anarchy.

There is no plan for limiting, clustering, locating or shaping very high buildings in London. It rivals the Moscow of the oligarchs. It is chaos.'

I'd add that one of the appealing things about London to visitors is its history, and visitors bring in a ton of money. If the historical aspects of London are destroyed in these narrow-vision money-making projects, benefitting mainly already affluent individuals, the appeal of London to visitors will rapidly disappear, to the detriment of the economy.

Possibly, governments felt they had little choice but to pursue the policy of making property a store of wealth, given that our wonderful manufacturing industries were destroyed by being priced out through globalisation, but I feel it's a dangerous one-track route to take.

As an aside, I know a family of people on the Continent who have lived in the same big rented flat (with balcony, no garden) since the war. They are relatively high earners (dentist and fitness specialist), and they certainly have no feelings of 'inadequacy' at being renters. It's just an accepted, comfortable thing for them. What a shame such a situation doesn't exist here…

lisyloo

When the bubble bursts, the strip from Bermondsey through Lambeth to Vauxhall, Nine Elms and Battersea will slide down market into decay.

Vauxhall is in Zone 1 (just) and a stones throw away from prime central London across the Thames.
The thought that there won't be high demand to live in such places is jsut completely crazy. There are millions of people who would prefer not to commute.

packing them onto the Tube

Infrastructure is being put into place all the time - crossrail, cycle super highway etc.

Indulging the City of London with towers so it can compete with Canary Wharf, like Singapore versus Kuala Lumpur, is not just bad planning, it is anarchy.

London is sparesely populated compared with places like Hong Kong.

I would like to see companies incentivised to move out of London, but some of the above is crazy talk presumably to sell papers/advertising.

If the historical aspects of London are destroyed

What you mean like knocking down big ben? or westminster abbey? Where did they drag up this journo?

Possibly, governments felt they had little choice but to pursue the policy of making property a store of wealth, given that our wonderful manufacturing industries were destroyed by being priced out through globalisation, but I feel it's a dangerous one-track route to take.

I do think there were few choices back in 2008 and low interest rates was probably a route we HAD to take. Yes it's risky.

remorseless

Geez what a negative attitude for hump-day!
Almost as inspiring as reading stories of divorcees with headlines of 'Forty, Flirty and Fabulous'

I think it depends a lot with expectations, if she expects to live in central London in a town house in her forty she really chose the wrong profession!

London is a a case on its own, hardly comparable with the rest of the UK, nothing stops Fiona to rent something she can afford and buying something outside of London. Does she really wants to be in London when she's old in few years time? <<this is a joke!

But she grew up in a council house, so does she expect that a house will be handed over to her for a peanut?

I'm … [pause] … working class

What is exactly wrong with being Working Class? Does she really think that working class are less worthy?

Graham_Devon

HappyMJ wrote: »

I'm a mendacious landlord. Never heard that one before.

I know I'm money grabbing. Each month the tenant sends me money I grab that pay the interest only mortgage payment and some other expenses and pocket the change...all £50 of it....oh but I'm mendacious so you can't believe a word of that. I must pocket the lot and buy cars (I don't own one) and go on expensive foreign holidays (I go on day trips as it's all I can afford).

So why do you hang on to it?

I see this sort of "poor me" line on the house buying forum quite a lot, with landlords suggesting they don't make much at all from their properties. But when questioned, the key thing for them isn't the profit on the rent, it's the capital growth and the fact someone else is paying all the costs of that capital growth for them.

TheBlueHorse

I've re-written the article. It's much better now....

Fiona Elsted is a moron

remorseless

also, I often see this comparison of rent agreements with UK and say Germany, Italy, France, etc - but they are very different in nature...

in Italy for example, yes you may get a 4+4 contract (4 years + 4 years vacation notice) though a lot of the dues fall on the tenant... this goes from fixing most minor repair (Mould, installing fans, electric) to decorate and keep the place in good shape, paining the walls, ceiling, clearing chimney, gutters, water pipes, etc.

So for those who believe the continental model is better, keep in mind whether you'd be willing to fork out for those things... Would you want that?

The anglo model (similar in Australia) expects the landlord to take care of the place granting them more freedom to evict, in Europe the tenant may have more stability but needs to treat the place like they own it (but they don't).

silverwhistle

But she doesn't want to live in London as she doesn't work there, but they haven't been able to build up a suitable deposit. The Guardian article points out they aren't unique in this respect of having decent jobs but unable to generate a deposit. I don't recall the percentage of people who have help from parents these days but the fact that it is appallingly large doesn't help those for whom the resource is not available.

I have to say I find this part of the board to be the most deeply unpleasant and unempathic of the whole site with a level of smugness and 'if I can do it..' that doesn't actually address the issue at all. ( Edited to thank The Blue Horse for proving my point.)

And it is an issue and will become an increasingly large one in the future if nothing is done.

silverwhistle

remorseless wrote: »

in Italy for example, yes you may get a 4+4 contract (4 years + 4 years vacation notice)

Yep, rented for 7 years, knew I had the stability and didn't have a rent increase in all that time. I'd absolutely hate to have to rent in the UK.

Sapphire

Some responses in bold.

lisyloo wrote: »

Vauxhall is in Zone 1 (just) and a stones throw away from prime central London across the Thames.
The thought that there won't be high demand to live in such places is jsut completely crazy.

Vauxhall was a cheap area to live in until just quite recently, so not crazy at all.

Infrastructure is being put into place all the time - crossrail, cycle super highway etc.

It is completely inadequate. I take trains, Tubes and buses during the rush hour. Most are always jam packed and very unpleasant to travel on. That's even the case outside the rush hour in many cases.

London is sparesely populated compared with places like Hong Kong.

Not from where I'm sitting. It is incredibly overcrowded now, mainly due to the increase in population from abroad. If it is 'sparsely populated' in the sense of people living in it, blame buy to leave, etc.

I would like to see companies incentivised to move out of London, but some of the above is crazy talk presumably to sell papers/advertising.

I thought there was quite a bit of common sense in the article, and that it mirrored my own view in many ways. Yes, I agree that other cities in the UK should be developed to spread the load somewhat.

What you mean like knocking down big ben? or westminster abbey? Where did they drag up this journo?

No – you must know I didn't mean that. I meant getting rid of the character of historic areas such as Soho and Camden, along with the communities that have lived in them for generations; destroying old historic properties; throwing up massive, ugly glass blocks that overshadow historic areas, and so on. All very well doing such things in derelict areas such as the East End, where they can look relatively cohesive and don't interfere with other structures, but doing it in established historic areas with decent architecture just to fit in more investors from abroad in 'luxury apartments' is criminal, in my view – and something we will bitterly regret in future.

I do think there were few choices back in 2008 and low interest rates was probably a route we HAD to take. Yes it's risky.

The property mania had already started a couple of decades before then. Agreed that it's risky.