flat and small mortgage or house and big mortgage

JeffMason

cattie said:

Personally I'd be going for the middle option, Hither Green & Forest Hill are quite sought after areas these days with great transport links. I'd imagine easier to sell on in the future too. Not to sure about Catford, but perfectly fine if you're at the Hither Green end.   Have you considered Anerley/Penge? Only there are quite a few flats that are sometimes called half houses in these areas & they can be quite spacious. My first purchase was a property of this type.

You don't say if the 3rd option flat is on a local authority estate, which isn't something I'd consider, but if a wholly private development then I'd give serious considerations to the financial positives. 

I live on the borders of SE London & Kent & my current home, which is a share of freehold 2 bedroom flat, actually has more space than the average 3 bed house, but I know that this is the exception rather than the rule.

Thank you! Yes, I'm looking at Anerley/Penge too. 

The third options are not local authority, although those are available too and I can get even more space for prices between the two extremes. 

Flats in private developments in Forest Hill etc seem to not be any cheaper than a half house but have the disadvantage of higher service charges. So the half house seems a better idea in those areas. 

MaryNB

If are you going with a 2-bed property, it's worth noting (especially if you're a bit worried about finances going forward) the leasehold may have a clause forbidding lodgers, nobody's going to stop you if you have a freehold house (just need to make sure your insurance provider is aware). 

JeffMason

MaryNB said:

If are you going with a 2-bed property, it's worth noting (especially if you're a bit worried about finances going forward) the leasehold may have a clause forbidding lodgers, nobody's going to stop you if you have a freehold house (just need to make sure your insurance provider is aware). 

I didn't realise that could be an issue. I'm not going to be having lodgers anyway, but that's good to know. 

I assume that one of the places I'm looking at doesn't have that issue though, as I've seen another flat in the same building advertising a room for rent...

MaryNB

From what I've read about people breaking that kind of leasehold clause is that you might get a bit of a telling off but a lot of freeholders or management companies won't pursue it further if you cease renting out the room. My friend's wife owned a flat with a clause banning lodgers but she had a friend renting a room so there wasn't really any way they would find out. 

You're unlikely to get a copy of the leasehold from the seller until well into the buying process, which frustrating if one of the clauses is a dealbreaker (the lodger restriction would be for me) but you might be able to order a copy of leasehold from HMLR. If the leasehold doesn't allow a lodger, chances are you won't be allowed to rent out the full property either if you decide to move but keep the flat. 

blue_max_3

In all honesty, you should get some viewings under your belt. Ultimately, it's what you feel comfortable with that matters. Sure a house is always nice, but if it's pokey and gives you claustrophobia, you'll know pretty quickly.

cattie

I've never actually heard of a lease that restricts having a lodger & whilst probably not unheard of is definitely not the norm. Restrictions on having pets, yes that can often occur with leasehold flats but not restrictions on who you can have stay at your property.  Because it is so unusual, any decent solicitor would flag this up immediately for your attention, especially as taking in a lodger for the spare room is pretty common now days.

Angela_D_3

It would come down to location for me.  The nicest property in the worst area is never a good idea.  The worst property in the best area can be spruced up over time.