Renting in your 40's and staring into the abyss

chucknorris

remorseless wrote: »

coming from Sydney, the prices in the UK are pretty affordable... it is easier to moan and say that it's expensive, unaffordable, blah blah but the floodgate is open now, like in Oz, not sure what can be done [really] to ever bring it back to a level comparable to say Europe.
NZ tried, and didn't really work that well, prices are still pretty high.

I don't believe prices will always go up, but I doubt that they will go down to what people think it's fair anytime soon.

How much do you think a 3 bed house for Fiona should cost?

I don't know anything about the rental market in Colchester, so I'm not in a position to comment.

ruggedtoast

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think most would prefer that to be honest.

The key thing above all else though is that renting in on the continent seems to be cheaper all round in terms of value for money in most places.

Having a quick look now, a 2 bed apartment (with the addition of a cellar) in the centre of Voiron in France is up for €560 a month. That's £390.

You'd struggle in most of the UK to get a property of the same standard for that money. It would be impossible in the South of the UK. In my own areas you'd be paying 80% more than the person in France. I dread to think how much more you'd be paying in, say, Kent.

Value for money is very important.

Assured Shorthold Tenancies in the UK weren't invented to provide homes, they were invented to encourage people who already owned property to become landlords.

Its pointless comparing the UK with the Continent because one created housing laws for people that needed housing and the other created them for people to make money out of people that needed housing.

ukcarper

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Assured Shorthold Tenancies in the UK weren't invented to provide homes, they were invented to encourage people who already owned property to become landlords.

Its pointless comparing the UK with the Continent because one created housing laws for people that needed housing and the other created them for people to make money out of people that needed housing.

What do you think would have happened to UK rental market if ASTs were not invented.

remorseless

ukcarper wrote: »

What do you think would have happened to UK rental market if ASTs were not invented.

I am speculating

remorseless

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Assured Shorthold Tenancies in the UK weren't invented to provide homes, they were invented to encourage people who already owned property to become landlords.

Its pointless comparing the UK with the Continent because one created housing laws for people that needed housing and the other created them for people to make money out of people that needed housing.

For me it's interesting that basically either the gov sorts out AST regulations to avoid being screwed or you are better to buy your home and get screwed by previous vultures!

The outcome is pretty grim unless you're here only for a short bumpy ride!

Sapphire

lisyloo wrote: »

[/B]Have you considered using a Boris bike?As fash as tubes and faster than buses during the rush hour. I've found a quiet route on residential streets.

No. I do not bike, and looking at the traffic in London I would consider it far too dangerous (not to mention time consuming!) to cycle from where I live.

lisyloo

It's not dangerous if you stick to cycle tracks and quiet streets.
It's faster than the tube and bus you mention in rush hour.
I'm one of the slower cyclists and go out of my way to get a quiet route and it's still quicker than the bus.

I'm not trying to convert you but there ARE options available - like getting up earlier. If you can't be bothered to get up earlier then it can't be that bad.

I almost always get a seat on the bus (in rush hour) so it ain't that bad.

chucknorris

lisyloo wrote: »

It's not dangerous if you stick to cycle tracks and quiet streets.
It's faster than the tube and bus you mention in rush hour.
I'm one of the slower cyclists and go out of my way to get a quiet route and it's still quicker than the bus.

I'm not trying to convert you but there ARE options available - like getting up earlier. If you can't be bothered to get up earlier then it can't be that bad.

I almost always get a seat on the bus (in rush hour) so it ain't that bad.

I had various public transport options to get to work when I lived in London, my preferred route was about 35 to 40 mins, my cycling time was 23 mins, it not only saved me travelling time, but I exercise anyway, so it was killing two stones with one bird.

Sapphire

lisyloo wrote: »

It's not dangerous if you stick to cycle tracks and quiet streets.
It's faster than the tube and bus you mention in rush hour.
I'm one of the slower cyclists and go out of my way to get a quiet route and it's still quicker than the bus.

I'm not trying to convert you but there ARE options available - like getting up earlier. If you can't be bothered to get up earlier then it can't be that bad.

I almost always get a seat on the bus (in rush hour) so it ain't that bad.

I get up at 6 anyway, and as I said I do not bike (never learnt to), and from where I live (North Kingston) it would take several hours of biking a day – not something I would like to do and hold down a job. Fine, perhaps, if I lived close to work and it took me 30 minutes, but I don't. As I said, the transport situation is diabolical, especially when it comes to Tubes (and trains and buses really) in hot weather.

ruggedtoast

Predictably, this forum just pours scorn on Fiona without considering any of her special challenges.

When you lot encounter an older renter you should think "There but for the grace of God go I". It is only a hair's breadth of chance that separates you from her.