Purchasing first house but renting elsewhere

Pixie5740

lookstraightahead wrote: »

It all feels a bit nanny state to me. Lots of people commute weekly, or at least they used to. What do they all do? (I'm not arguing I'm just interested). I suppose they lodge or stay in hotels. So could op rent a room in the week (ie lodge)

Nanny state in what sense? Why would losing or staying in hotels be the only options? How would those options help the OP get round the mortgage issue?

BlackBird75

franklee wrote: »

You cannot be a tenant on an assured shorthold tenancy if it's not your only or principle home. I suspect that may restrict what landlords will want you.

So what about students?

BlackBird75

OP, if you want further advice, it may be worth posting on internet forums for temporary / agency workers / armed forces / airline cabin crew etc. Nearly all of them will have bought a house and worked away. Some may have lodgers.

I personally never had any problems doing what you have suggested, but it was a few years ago now.

One thing I would be cautious about is your home insurance. Pay attention to that and make sure you get confirmation in writing that they are aware of the situation.

Good luck.

BlackBird75

Another thing worth considering, is whether you have any family members who may wish to become your "lodgers".

Family members are usually excluded from the HMO rules and insurance companies tend to be less concerned about them, compared to other lodgers.

p00hsticks

what the OP hasn't really explained - other than that they can't afford to buy a property near where they work - is WHY they want to buy a property in the Midlands.

Presumably it's just to get on the housing ladder. But there's no guarantee that house prices are going to increase in the way that the have in previous decades, so it could end up a poor investment.

As they will be renting in london, then they are going to have to find the cost of the mortgage, long commuting at weekends, utilities, council etc on top of their existing rent.

Is this expenditure really going to be covered by one or two lodgers (if they can get them). ?


The mortgage affordability checks could be interesting....

Cakeguts

tl202 wrote: »

Hmm food for thought, but I'm afraid I have thought about the matter quite a lot and it just wouldn't be this simple.

Unfortunately, I am in the situation of having a job that is both not well paid but also incredibly specialised, so finding another company outside of London would be incredibly difficult and could take years of waiting. I think my one real advantage in all this is that I am rather skilled at budgeting/saving, so am in the position that I would only need a minuscule mortgage.

All this said, if Pixie is correct about not even being able to get any mortgage for a property so far away from my place of work then the whole question becomes something of a moot point.

OK so are you living to work? Or working to live? It sounds like the first one.

BlackBird75

p00hsticks wrote: »

what the OP hasn't really explained - other than that they can't afford to buy a property near where they work - is WHY they want to buy a property in the Midlands.

Presumably it's just to get on the housing ladder. But there's no guarantee that house prices are going to increase in the way that the have in previous decades, so it could end up a poor investment.

As they will be renting in london, then they are going to have to find the cost of the mortgage, long commuting at weekends, utilities, council etc on top of their existing rent.

Is this expenditure really going to be covered by one or two lodgers (if they can get them). ?


The mortgage affordability checks could be interesting....

This is a good point.

I was assuming the OP would buy a main home in the Midlands and then just rent a room in London.
It's not great only having a single room to live in, without an actual house to put all your stuff in etc. Especially as you get older.

Even then, working away from your main home does get tedious after a while.

Presumably the OP is single?
If he gets married, his wife will probably move into the Midlands house...?

tl202

p00hsticks wrote: »

what the OP hasn't really explained - other than that they can't afford to buy a property near where they work - is WHY they want to buy a property in the Midlands.

Presumably it's just to get on the housing ladder. But there's no guarantee that house prices are going to increase in the way that the have in previous decades, so it could end up a poor investment.

As they will be renting in london, then they are going to have to find the cost of the mortgage, long commuting at weekends, utilities, council etc on top of their existing rent.

Is this expenditure really going to be covered by one or two lodgers (if they can get them). ?


The mortgage affordability checks could be interesting....

So, as for the why, the reason for the midlands is indeed a combination of affordable multiple bedroom houses. The aim is to end up with a property where I can still head once a week and make my own, but which also takes care of its own costs for bills and mortgage through income from the (ideally) two lodgers. This way my current situation in London doesn't really change as I will still have essentially the same amount to spend on rent/living/savings. Commuting to/from twice a week would, of course, add extra costs, but a combination of booking in advance of off-peak travel and a rail card would make this tolerable.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I have the advantage of having been very diligent with my savings over the past decade, so if I were to look at £130-140k 3 bed terraces in, say, Nottingham, the mortgage amount would be minimal and almost completely covered even by a below local average priced let room. Throw in the second lodger, and bills/council tax etc would also be comfortably covered. Of course, finding lodgers wouldn't be guaranteed, but the total cost of the property would still be covered by my monthly savings.

This is, of course, predicated on being eligible for counting as a live in landlord, hence my original query. As long as I could actually get one in the first place for a house so far away from my work (a new concern), mortgage payments shouldn't be an issue.

So, if I was to do a Monday to Friday let in London, and have all bills etc registered to the Midlands house, would this really not allow me to register it as my principal private residence?

BlackBird75

tl202 wrote: »

So, as for the why, the reason


allow me to register it as my principal private residence?

PPR is the HMRC term. If it's the only house you own, you don't really "register" it with them as such. You just put it down as your address for everything and by default HMRC view it as your PPR.

Permanent Home Address is the term used by employers (and HMRC) when considering travel / mileage allowance payments etc.

If you lodge in London Monday to Friday only, you may not need to pay council tax there. But I'm not sure about that. The Monday to Friday thing is more something the Home Office take an interest in, when making sure you are not letting illegal immigrants use the property as their permanent address.