Homes in the UK still very cheap/affordable

lisyloo

Many places are cheap just because they are not London.

I don't believe many people are snobbish when it comes to housing or money.
Most locate themselves based on commuting, jobs, cost and family responsibilities.

[Deleted User]

As it turns out, there is actually an economy outside of London. I'm a confused sort - my head offices are in Leeds, but I live just inside the M25. I don't need to live here. It's a quirk of employment, and where our family lives.

But it actually turns out there are actually hubs of employment outside of London. There're even roads beyond the M25, and even a train network that will travel beyond Milton Keynes. The 'North' doesn't just consist of decommissioned cotton mills!

seven-day-weekend

lisyloo wrote: »

I don't believe many people are snobbish when it comes to housing or money.
Most locate themselves based on commuting, jobs, cost and family responsibilities.

Not a matter of snobbishness. I just meant the London housing market seems to bear no resemblance to the rest of the UK.

kabayiri

ringo_24601 wrote: »

As it turns out, there is actually an economy outside of London. I'm a confused sort - my head offices are in Leeds, but I live just inside the M25. I don't need to live here. It's a quirk of employment, and where our family lives.

But it actually turns out there are actually hubs of employment outside of London. There're even roads beyond the M25, and even a train network that will travel beyond Milton Keynes. The 'North' doesn't just consist of decommissioned cotton mills!

Hubs of employment sums it up well.

Leeds has a healthy local economy. Manchester, aided by the developing tram network, also has certain strengths. Large Universities clearly help.

But move a few miles away from Leeds in to South Yorkshire, and you get a different picture in places like Rotherham.

cells

stator wrote: »

Those mortgage payments are too low. For a 95% mortgage they would be higher.

It also doesn't indicate how they are affordable since rents are so high no-one can afford the deposit

They are 90% mortgages based on a 2.5% rate and 30 year term. In reality today you can get 90% mortgages for 1.99% rate and do it over 35 years which makes those monthly mortgage figures higher than what van actually be achieved

The idea that people can not save deposits due to high rents is also a silly notion maybe it is true for SOME people but it is not true for most people. High rents are also just a feature of London in most the regions you are looking at 500-800pm for rents

cells

mrginge wrote: »

What proportion of housing stock is the 'average terrace'?

How often does the 'average terrace' come onto the market?

Shouldn't the monthly cost also include costs of ownership rather than just mortgage costs?

Should the cost of purchase, remortgage be factored in?

Terraces are probably the major stock in this country. They are also not the cheapest as flats tend to be cheaper so there ate cheaper properties that my list om the first post.

Also these are the average terraces which means half of them are cheaper than tbkse figures.

Cost of purchase (legals) is trivial over a 30 year term. Works out to less than a fiver a month. Cost of renting is likely comparable at best to a lot more of you move frequently. Cost of remortgages are somewhat factored in by using a higher rate than is actually possible. Right now a 2 year fix on 90% LTV is 2% whereas I used a figure of 2.5%

Whatever way one tries to load the dice it's clear property on most regions is not just affordable but down right cheap costing just 10-15% of joint post tax income

cells

Andrew_Ryan_89 wrote: »

Back in my parents day, 2 people could be working minimum wage and be able to afford to buy a house. Not any more.

This is a mix of confirmation bias and simply false. The ownership rate continiisly increased until 2004 and was more or less flat until 2006. This says peal affordability was in circa 2005 with the time before thet homes were cheaper but also less affordable.

This might sound odd how could homes have been cheaper in the last but also less affordable. Its a moc of reasons from higher rates to higher non housing costs. The truth is ownership was lower 40 years ago contrary to tales of 'ma parents bought a mansion for a pittance and had change left over too'

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

This is a mix of confirmation bias and simply false. The ownership rate continiisly increased until 2004 and was more or less flat until 2006. This says peal affordability was in circa 2005 with the time before thet homes were cheaper but also less affordable.

This might sound odd how could homes have been cheaper in the last but also less affordable. Its a moc of reasons from higher rates to higher non housing costs. The truth is ownership was lower 40 years ago contrary to tales of 'ma parents bought a mansion for a pittance and had change left over too'

given the inevitable lags, that would be just when immigration was starting to have large impact

[Deleted User]

cells wrote: »

Terraces are probably the major stock in this country. They are also not the cheapest as flats tend to be cheaper so there ate cheaper properties that my list om the first post.

According to Nationwide, Semi-detached is the most popular (32%), followed by terrace (27%), detached (22%), flats (14%) then cottages (5%)

Link: http://www.nationwide.co.uk/~/media/MainSite/documents/about/house-price-index/sd-houses.pdf

ruperts

cells wrote: »

Terraces are probably the major stock in this country. They are also not the cheapest as flats tend to be cheaper so there ate cheaper properties that my list om the first post.

Also these are the average terraces which means half of them are cheaper than tbkse figures.

Cost of purchase (legals) is trivial over a 30 year term. Works out to less than a fiver a month. Cost of renting is likely comparable at best to a lot more of you move frequently. Cost of remortgages are somewhat factored in by using a higher rate than is actually possible. Right now a 2 year fix on 90% LTV is 2% whereas I used a figure of 2.5%

Whatever way one tries to load the dice it's clear property on most regions is not just affordable but down right cheap costing just 10-15% of joint post tax income

Flats are generally slightly cheaper to buy than houses but you also have to take into account the great British service charges scam which adds another £200 per month on average to the costs of running a flat, making them significantly less affordable than terraces.

You miss the point again with your last paragraph. Affordability of monthly repayments is not the main barrier to getting a mortgage. The vast majority of renters (who despite your frankly bizarre claim of not being very numerous actually number in the millions) already pay as much in rent as they would pay in mortgage repayments on the same property. The main barrier is raising the typical requirement of a 20% deposit. While higher LTV's are theoretically available - as in they are advertised - practically no FTB's get accepted for those mortgages, and that's why the average FTB deposit is well over 30%. A requirement to raise a deposit of some £40,000 on a low quality terrace is absolutely unprecedented and all but impossible for one of the millions currently renting to achieve within a decade, by which time of course that requirement has risen by some 7% - 15% per year.