Why Is A 44 Year Old Man Still Renting?

zarf2007

paddyrg wrote: »

Some of those factors are very real for some people in some tenancies. It's not universal.

Our current place we've been here around 9 years, lady before was here 40 years, landlady isn't a twitchy amateur worrying about stamp duty rises etc. And as a good tenant, it's better business for her to keep us keeping the place in good condition than have the place unoccupied for a couple of months. And we pay significantly less in rent than a mortgage on the place would be. And the last rise was 7 years ago, by £25/month. And we agreed to it. And it's worth it.

Maintenance - agreed, it can dawdle for non-essentials, but the essentials are sorted next day, when they arise. The place was fully refitted between the last lady and us, much of it is still as new. Not all landlords are alike.

You're right, I haven't paid for a new kitchen or decoration - the kitchen was new when we moved in, the landlady paid for a painter to refresh some walls we asked for. Admittedly, we keep to fairly conservative colours, mostly 'Landlord Magnoila' in one or another form, but with accent walls etc. Many people would choose similarly TBH

Not every rental experience is the same. Yes, there are slumlords catering to people who would never be able to afford to buy anyway, so not really a part of the dialogue. People make different choices and that goes for professional landlords and tenants. If in your world it's only bad news, I'm sorry to hear that. The reality is more varied and complex.

I think you are very much in a minority where things have worked out. I have rented from the £1200 per month up to the £2500 per month bracket and while the quality of the property increases the same penny pinching tactics of the landlord are in play at every level.

It also depends how you live. If you are a tenant who is happy in a furnished accommodation or your furniture is ikea quality then you may not mind moving but if you own expensive items of furniture then constantly moving a house full of this is expensive and risks damage each time.

I always rented unfurnished properties as we were buying and building up our furniture for when we would buy a place so it was probably more hassle to do this rather than rent furnished.

Now that I have bought a place as long as my mortgage payments are met I know that the only person who can make me move is me.

Generali

zarf2007 wrote: »

was that with 2 kids in toe? thought not.

I never had a problem renting in London with the kids and Mrs Generali in tow. If you are renting at the bottom of the pile it might be a problem as there is more competition for the cheapest places and so groups of sharers renting will tend to outbid you. If you are looking at the mid-market stuff then they like to get families in and I got a place at a third off the asked-for rent because we were a boring family so not likely to smash the place up.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

I had good landlords and bad landlords in 12 years of renting in London; the one common denominator was the chore of dealing with letting agents. From incompetence to outright shameless liars, they cheerfully rip off both LL and tenant. I know you can find rentals without them, but that's harder.

There a few things I miss about renting, but having to read agents' semi-literate demands for cash is not one of them.

lisyloo

zarf2007 wrote: »

was that with 2 kids in toe? thought not.

I realise things are harder with kids but it's not impossible to get child care.
If it's too difficult the try contraception !

Harsh - no you're moaning about having to live whilst look after you OWN children that you bought int the world.

Perhaps decide on your priorities.
Perhaps renting, having kids and living in london isn't a terribly good combination, but ultimately it's no one else's responsibility to look after your own kids except the parent(s).

zarf2007

lisyloo wrote: »

I realise things are harder with kids but it's not impossible to get child care.
If it's too difficult the try contraception !

Harsh - no you're moaning about having to live whilst look after you OWN children that you bought int the world.

Perhaps decide on your priorities.
Perhaps renting, having kids and living in london isn't a terribly good combination, but ultimately it's no one else's responsibility to look after your own kids except the parent(s).

so your effectively saying don't have kids until you can afford to purchase a property? I guess there will be a lot of childless couples in London and the South East for a while yet then.....

I think as I have said if you had proper long term protected tenancies as you do in France and other parts of europe (these can be passed generation to generation) then there wouldnt be a problem with the rental market.

As it is with letting agents fees/practices and the fact you can be kicked out on a whim I don't think it makes for a very stable environment unless you are 20 something, no kids and happy to live in basic accomodation.

lisyloo

zarf2007 wrote: »

so your effectively saying don't have kids until you can afford to purchase a property? I guess there will be a lot of childless couples in London and the South East for a while yet then.....

I think as I have said if you had proper long term protected tenancies as you do in France and other parts of europe (these can be passed generation to generation) then there wouldnt be a problem with the rental market.

As it is with letting agents fees/practices and the fact you can be kicked out on a whim I don't think it makes for a very stable environment unless you are 20 something, no kids and happy to live in basic accomodation.

No I am not saying you can't have kids and rent - absolutely not.
But if you want to have kids and rent in London then you obviously need to be prepared to fork out for the costs of having kids in rented which may include paying for childcare whist you look for property.
It doesn't seem an ideal combination to me, but there's nothing wrong with it.
What is wrong is choosing it and the moaning about your responsibilities.

I would agree with you that it isn't an ideal combination but if people want to choose it then they have to accept the downsides that comr with having a family and renting in London.

I'd rather own elsewhere with a family - even up north.

Generali

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I had good landlords and bad landlords in 12 years of renting in London; the one common denominator was the chore of dealing with letting agents. From incompetence to outright shameless liars, they cheerfully rip off both LL and tenant. I know you can find rentals without them, but that's harder.

There a few things I miss about renting, but having to read agents' semi-literate demands for cash is not one of them.

Estate agents are scum, lettings agents are worse.

chucknorris

lisyloo wrote: »

I'd rather own elsewhere with a family - even up north.

Watford is no place to bring up children. Or did you mean the forbidden zone, North of North?

lisyloo

There is nothing at all wrong with the north.

Personally I don't see the benefit of having kids in London because of the sacrifices you have to make in terms of space and money.
In many cases it would be better for one person to move job or have a horrible commute.
Not ideal but most of us can't have it all at the same time. certainly not in London and the SE.

A lot of my colleagues with kids bought ages ago, so it does make you wonder what will happen in future. For example will all the unskilled jobs be done by migrants willing to live in slums.

wotsthat

You lot are so Northist.