House or Flat?

blue_max_3

It is suggested that people allow 1%pa for maintenance of a house. A wildly broad spectrum I know, but you should never assume there will be no costs attached to living in a house.
I'm sure most people think of flats as some pokey place on the 14th floor of a high rise with overpriced service charges and noisy neighbours. There are places like that, but there are stunning places as well. Just like there are hideous houses that you'd feel unclean/unsafe even entering.

NameUnavailable

Young_Turk said:

NameUnavailable said:

Young_Turk said:

blue_max_3 said:

I bought a large flat in North London and stayed thirty years (and only moved because of divorce). I owned a share of the freehold, so no service charges.

I'm owner-occupier of a flat with share of freehold too. Don't you still pay something like a service charge? We each (it's a house converted into four flats) pay something (I think it's referred to as a maintenance fee) to cover the costs (regular costs are insurance and lighting, and then occasionally painting, repairs to the roof, replacing windows, etc.). 

NameUnavailable said:

Service charges are meaningless. They say it's £2100 but that was for the last year. They might decide to do a lot of work next year and the service charge could be £20K. 

But how does that help comparing the costs of houses with flats? If the service charge isn't a good guide, a house has absolutely no guide at all about the possible costs.

Any property will need regular maintenance but some flats don't have a regular service charge and or are self managed so you're not paying other peoples wages for their time to get quotes and send demands, or inflate charges with 'commission'. 

If you own a freehold house then there's no service charge (unless you live on an estate where you have to pay for upkeep of communal areas). You simply get quotes for work as/when needed or do the work yourself, which you can't usually do if you live in a flat.

Yes, on the one hand it's seems like flats are likely to cost owners more to maintain for the reasons you give. But on the other hand, there is a lot more to maintain in most houses, especially detached houses. How should a buyer of a house try to think about likely maintenance costs?

Do many people have a choice between a flat of a detached house? I think it's more likely to be flat or terraced / semi.

The buyer's survey will give them a good idea of what is likely to need attention and they can get estimates for costs. In a house you don't have to pay for recarpeting communal hallways, redecorating communal areas, fire surveys, electrical checks, gardening, etc. etc. and the work you do need to do can be done at your timescale as and when you can afford it, or you DIY.

Young_Turk

NameUnavailable said:

Young_Turk said:

NameUnavailable said:

Young_Turk said:

blue_max_3 said:

I bought a large flat in North London and stayed thirty years (and only moved because of divorce). I owned a share of the freehold, so no service charges.

I'm owner-occupier of a flat with share of freehold too. Don't you still pay something like a service charge? We each (it's a house converted into four flats) pay something (I think it's referred to as a maintenance fee) to cover the costs (regular costs are insurance and lighting, and then occasionally painting, repairs to the roof, replacing windows, etc.). 

NameUnavailable said:

Service charges are meaningless. They say it's £2100 but that was for the last year. They might decide to do a lot of work next year and the service charge could be £20K. 

But how does that help comparing the costs of houses with flats? If the service charge isn't a good guide, a house has absolutely no guide at all about the possible costs.

Any property will need regular maintenance but some flats don't have a regular service charge and or are self managed so you're not paying other peoples wages for their time to get quotes and send demands, or inflate charges with 'commission'. 

If you own a freehold house then there's no service charge (unless you live on an estate where you have to pay for upkeep of communal areas). You simply get quotes for work as/when needed or do the work yourself, which you can't usually do if you live in a flat.

Yes, on the one hand it's seems like flats are likely to cost owners more to maintain for the reasons you give. But on the other hand, there is a lot more to maintain in most houses, especially detached houses. How should a buyer of a house try to think about likely maintenance costs?

Do many people have a choice between a flat of a detached house? I think it's more likely to be flat or terraced / semi. 

I did. In a lot of places the most expensive flats cost more than the cheapest detached house in that area and a few flats cost as much as a typical detached house in that area. Also a buyer of an expensive flat in an expensive area had the option of a detached house in a cheaper area.

e.g. I was looking at flats in Hove mostly in the 400-600k range. There are a few detached houses in Hove at that range and there are more in nearby towns, which I could have bought instead.

NameUnavailable said:

Young_Turk said:

NameUnavailable said:

Young_Turk said:

blue_max_3 said:

I bought a large flat in North London and stayed thirty years (and only moved because of divorce). I owned a share of the freehold, so no service charges.

I'm owner-occupier of a flat with share of freehold too. Don't you still pay something like a service charge? We each (it's a house converted into four flats) pay something (I think it's referred to as a maintenance fee) to cover the costs (regular costs are insurance and lighting, and then occasionally painting, repairs to the roof, replacing windows, etc.). 

NameUnavailable said:

Service charges are meaningless. They say it's £2100 but that was for the last year. They might decide to do a lot of work next year and the service charge could be £20K. 

But how does that help comparing the costs of houses with flats? If the service charge isn't a good guide, a house has absolutely no guide at all about the possible costs.

Any property will need regular maintenance but some flats don't have a regular service charge and or are self managed so you're not paying other peoples wages for their time to get quotes and send demands, or inflate charges with 'commission'. 

If you own a freehold house then there's no service charge (unless you live on an estate where you have to pay for upkeep of communal areas). You simply get quotes for work as/when needed or do the work yourself, which you can't usually do if you live in a flat.

Yes, on the one hand it's seems like flats are likely to cost owners more to maintain for the reasons you give. But on the other hand, there is a lot more to maintain in most houses, especially detached houses. How should a buyer of a house try to think about likely maintenance costs?

The buyer's survey will give them a good idea of what is likely to need attention and they can get estimates for costs. In a house you don't have to pay for recarpeting communal hallways, redecorating communal areas, fire surveys, electrical checks, gardening, etc. etc. and the work you do need to do can be done at your timescale as and when you can afford it, or you DIY. 

Surveys tell you what works needs to be done now, or should be done soon. I'm asking about work that would be expected to be required over several decades, assuming everything is fine currently.