Is it always worth buying just to get on the ladder?

alchemist.1

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

It won't be difficult to sell on at the right price.

Indeed.

Buying it for the right price may be difficult though seeing that its been on sale since May.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

alchemist.1 wrote: »

Indeed.

Buying it for the right price may be difficult though seeing that its been on sale since May.

That might well be true, but there's no such thing as a house that's inherently a bad buy or difficult to sell. Paying too much for this one just puts you in the same position as paying too much for a 3 bedroom semi with parking.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Peter333 wrote: »

So many people sing the praises of buying a property, but really, unless you are properly well-off (like on the mid 6 figures per year between you,) buying is often a struggle. And many people who DO buy won't admit it.

Social housing is really the best bet for many these days. Shame there's not enough for everyone who wants it to have it.

What a load of drivel. Social housing is best for many!
Yes let's all aspire to live in an area full of benefit claimants, where crime is high, achievement is low and desirability is close to zero.

Me and the wife bought in our early to mid 20's (5yrs ago). We earned less than £50k combined and we managed just fine... Within that time we even got married, had a baby & paid out for a new roof and windows .... shock horror. We should be mortgage free within 8-10 yrs.

Yes owning a home will have it's drawbacks but in the long run over a 20-30 yr mortgage your chancing of being worse off than a rentier is close to ZERO. Especially with interest rates being so gloriously low, we would be paying £200-£300 more a month in rent for a similar property.

And in 10 yrs time I will be 40, living in a home worth £150,000.00 (at present) with no mortgage/rent to pay for the next 30+ yrs hopefully. Upon our death we will be able to pass down our remaining wealth to our child. What could be better than that...... In Peters world paying £700pcm for the next 30+ yrs is the best option (£252,000.00 well spent he reckons..... based on a hypothetical no increase to the rent)

Crashy_Time

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

What a load of drivel. Social housing is best for many!
Yes let's all aspire to live in an area full of benefit claimants, where crime is high, achievement is low and desirability is close to zero.

Me and the wife bought in our early to mid 20's (5yrs ago). We earned less than £50k combined and we managed just fine... Within that time we even got married, had a baby & paid out for a new roof and windows .... shock horror. We should be mortgage free within 8-10 yrs.

Yes owning a home will have it's drawbacks but in the long run over a 20-30 yr mortgage your chancing of being worse off than a rentier is close to ZERO. Especially with interest rates being so gloriously low, we would be paying £200-£300 more a month in rent for a similar property.

And in 10 yrs time I will be 40, living in a home worth £150,000.00 (at present) with no mortgage/rent to pay for the next 30+ yrs hopefully. Upon our death we will be able to pass down our remaining wealth to our child. What could be better than that...... In Peters world paying £700pcm for the next 30+ yrs is the best option (£252,000.00 well spent he reckons..... based on a hypothetical no increase to the rent)

Yes, some would be "rentiers" will be feeling the pinch pretty soon it looks like....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/the-buy-to-let-borrowers-marooned-on-high-rates-for-life/...

hohum

I think it is worth buying (says the very experienced home owner of one year ) but within certain 'yes and' caveats.

- are you within your means? Having witnessed the housing boom and bust of the past 10 years, I was pretty keen that we kept within our fairly tight budget.

- are you buying just for the sake of having property? I'm not convinced that is a good idea. We bought because we wanted somewhere to live, and because we got the opportunity to buy

- how much of a risk are you taking on resale? The property we bought is in an area I consider to be undervalued, with fairly substantial shopping/ transport developments over the next few years. The area isn't really a buy to let proposition, so our resale market would be young families. It looked like prices remained fairly stable, apart from in the mid 2000s where they reflected the national housing price boom

We had some fairly tight criteria, and it took a reallllly long time for us to find the right property. Ours had been sat empty, and had been on the market for over a year. I don't think this necessarily indicates a problem property. It had some absolute howlers in terms of interior decor that probably put people off, plus they'd put the wrong postcode on property listing sites so it wouldn't have showed up in area searches. It was listed at offers in the region of £105k, and we got it for £96k. The big expenditures were replacing ridge tiles (£2300 because scaffold), and a leaking water mains pipe under the house. We managed to get the water company to contribute toward replacement (I said things about duty of care to water conservation) and paid £500 over 10 months of interest free installments. The ridge tiles were flagged in survey, the water mains we only discovered when we lifted the access hatch in the kitchen. Oh, and we weren't connected to the gas for 5 weeks after moving in. Bad decorative order will usually mean not a lot of maintenance, so we allowed for a bit of additional expense that way.

However, it is very typical of it's market and right for our needs. We are mindful in that it's not a local market that will bear fancy extravagant home improvements I'm not sure that this maisonette is such a bargain, though. There's no point making one of the biggest purchases of you life just because it looks like a bargain. Although I confess, I do feel like ours was a bargain due to our ability to see past artex and strand board decorative panelling ( :eek: ) and I like bringing our little home out from under the weight of bad decorative decisions past.

It is very much cheaper for us to buy rather than rent in terms of running costs. The mortgage on our 3 bed home is £100 cheaper a month than the rent we paid on our 2 bed home, and £200 cheaper than the market rate. The improvements we made we factored in to the purchase cost. Our running costs are also slightly lower in terms of utilities etc.

Oh, and it's a little naive to think social housing is linked to lack of aspiration. It would probably be better than the situation we have now, where private individuals profit from taxpayers money in the form of housing benefit for private tenants.

amateur_house

Peter333 wrote: »

Very true. And despite stories on here from people who reckon they purchased their home less than 10 years ago, and have paid their entire mortgage in 4, 5, or 6 years or thereabouts, the fact is that the vast majority of people will not pay for their house until they're past 70! And the chances of them getting ill for a long spell, or being out of work for a long period of time, or losing one wage because of one partner looking after children, is quite high!

And as you said, what happens if they become ill or disabled and are unable to work for a long time? Unemployment insurance only usually pays out for a year, that's if it pays out at all, and the insurance company doesn't pull an excuse out of their hat to not pay you!!!

As you said, if someone had lost their job 6 months after buying the house, they would be up the creek. If they were renting, they could claim housing benefit.

So many people sing the praises of buying a property, but really, unless you are properly well-off (like on the mid 6 figures per year between you,) buying is often a struggle. And many people who DO buy won't admit it.

Social housing is really the best bet for many these days. Shame there's not enough for everyone who wants it to have it.

I don't know anyone still paying a mortgage at the age of 70, though that doesn't mean some aren't, but I doubt it's the majority. The first year or two of paying a mortgage are usually the toughest, but as you get pay rises and the mortgage stays the same, especially if you get a fixed rate, it gets easier. Whereas rents usually go up. We've never had anything close to a six figure salary! I doubt we would qualify for housing benefit as I still have an income, but as the rents per month being charged for houses on our street now are more than my take home pay there is no way we would be able to afford to stay if we were renting.

I think if the OP feels this house is somewhere they would feel happy living then buying gives far more security than renting. As others have said if something like redundancy does happen they can sell up and won't be in any worse position than if they carried on renting.