Cant sell my flat due to being under 30sqm

eddddy

Alan2020 said:

I think people are harsh with the OP.  Personally I think these minimum space requirements should not be retrospectively applied. Meaning that planning and building control permitted it was acceptable.
Hence it should be available to rent and mortgageable at a fair rate. If mortgages are refused by an FCA regulated bank then the regulator should suspend that lender from lending until they pay a fine equal to the mortgage.
Also if silly rules like this are brought then the department responsible for it should buy back all these at the original predicted market rate and demolish them.

It sounds like you might have misunderstood the issue.

The mortgage lenders are refusing to lend because they think the property is bad security for a loan - not because of any planning or building control rules.

(Mortgage lenders lend on many properties which wouldn't meet current planning or building control requirements.)

The lenders are worried that if the property market takes a downturn, and that happens to coincide with the mortgage lender having to repossess the flat - the mortgage lender thinks it will be difficult to sell a flat this small, so it may be hard to get their money back.


The regulator isn't going to insist that banks lend on properties which they think might become worth less that the mortgage. That would be bad for the bank and bad for the customer.

Armorica

OP - speak to the estate agent selling your neighbours flat - find out if they've had much interest, and try to explore if you might both have more luck if you join forces to find a cash buyer to buy both flats. I assume it's an older building that used to be a single property and so there might be interest is having two close together, or reconverting back into a single thing. (Subject to complex navigation of planning rules!)

AdrianC

Alan2020 said:

Personally I think these minimum space requirements should not be retrospectively applied. Meaning that planning and building control permitted it was acceptable.

The space standards are not legally binding.
It is still perfectly legal to build a 26m2 flat today.
Nobody is trying to withdraw permission for the property to exist or be deemed habitable.

Hence it should be available to rent and mortgageable at a fair rate.

So you don't think lenders should be able to pick what they find acceptable security to lend against?

Does that apply to EVERY situation?
Every lender should be forced to lend against Grade 1 listed properties?
They should be forced to lend even if every other borrower in the building or street is also their borrower?
They should be forced to lend even with post-Grenfell EWS1/cladding issues?
They should be forced to lend against rapidly increasing ground rents?
All those other situations where lender opinions of certain properties have changed in the past, and properties have become harder to mortgage...

Also if silly rules like this are brought then the department responsible for it should buy back all these at the original predicted market rate and demolish them.

"Buy back"?
Who do you think the OP bought the flat from in the first place? Clue: Not the lender who thought it was acceptable security.
Not somebody else's lender who doesn't now think it is, despite the fact that there may well be others who do think it is.

I think for a single person or couple it’s a lovely little private space than some wretched HMO.

Are they the only choices...?
Have you looked at those dimensions on the floorplan? Would you really want to live there, given the choice of that or a place that does meet those standards?
Let me remind you...

Put a normal double (not queen - 1.35m x 2m) bed in that bedroom, and there's about half a metre on each side, and less than a metre at the foot. Without any space for any storage at all, without considering the door openings.
The only bathroom is about 1.5m square - literally half of that in either direction would be taken up by the smallest standard shower tray, 700 square. A typical cistern is 400mm wide, so there's about 200mm spare either side of the cistern. A typical basin is 500mm or so and 400mm deep - which means just getting into the shower is a limbo and a wriggle.
Assuming the cooker in that kitchen is the standard depth of 60cm, then there's just 90cm between the front and the wall. What about when the oven door's open? Can you actually get past it? If the sink was opposite-handed so you could actually stand square to it, there wouldn't be space for a fridge beneath it. Presumably a free-standing fridge would go in the gap between cooker and door - that means there's about 60cm split between the cupboards either side of the cooker. Now take away the carcass widths to see how little usable space that leaves.

How would all of you feel if I came to power and said if your house isn’t minimum 250m2 for a 2 bed and have a 4 car driveway and 100m deep garden you cannot rent out or get a mortgage. It will wipe the grin off your faces.

"Came to power"?
This isn't about the government. This is about lenders.

The standards I linked to were published six years ago. The OP bought their flat two years ago, four years after their publication.
It is lenders who have changed their opinions about what they want to lend against. And you don't want them to be allowed to do that.

GDB2222

There are some weird opinions on this thread. That’s all I’m going to say, as I don’t want to give the moderator apoplexy.

carebabe

The property could be of interest to an older person downsizing having sold family home and money from sale proceeds.  It may be that it’s more important than ever to them to be near to family or friends.  This could be more important than concerns about selling it in the future.  Advert on Facebook Marketplace and Newsagent? 

LAD917

I don't see the space as that tight - I've seen smaller kitchens and bathrooms in million-plus pound flats in London. 

That said, homes are generally long-term investments with extremely high transaction costs - stamp duty, solicitors, estate agent fees when you sell.  I always remind people buying property that you typically need at least a 5% (and often closer to 10%) return just to break even, after accounting for your purchase and eventual sale costs.

Very few people will want to live in a space this small long-term -- especially with many people now expecting to work from home at least part-time for the foreseeable future. OP, you are selling after <=2 years?  I suspect many buyers will think similarly, unless they're Marie Kondo.  This is a great set-up for a young single person to live for a couple of years.   However, we're no longer in a period of endlessly appreciating property values, and the vast majority of young people who want to live in a space like this for a couple of years are financially far better off renting.  Mortgageable or not, this type of property is a bad idea for most people who are not committing to be single and clutter-free for the next 5-10 years.

You may luck out and get someone so eager to get on the property ladder that they'll ignore the limitations.  But most probably your buyer is an investor or a pied-a-terre, as those are the two groups that could conceivably hold this property long-term. The vast majority of other people are going to want to sell in 2-3 years just like you are.  This is one of those great to rent, terrible to buy flats (IMO).

AdrianC

LAD917 said:

I don't see the space as that tight - I've seen smaller kitchens and bathrooms in million-plus pound flats in London. 

Yes, pocket-money pied-a-terres.

This isn't one of them.

NameUnavailable

I remember a place on the news a few years back, basically a large cupboard space within a mansion block in Knightsbridge, which was sold for silly money for someone to convert to a 'studio' flat. It would accommodate a single bed/bedside table and a very small shower room. No kitchen. The agent who sold the flat was interviewed and said there was no need for a kitchen due to the many fine restaurants in the neighbourhood.

[Deleted User]

AdrianC said:

LAD917 said:

I don't see the space as that tight - I've seen smaller kitchens and bathrooms in million-plus pound flats in London. 

Yes, pocket-money pied-a-terres.

This isn't one of them.

Indeed, just to point out to anyone who's not ploughed through this whole thread, this flat is in "a tiny village in Hertfordshire".  

NameUnavailable

Poster_586329 said:

AdrianC said:

LAD917 said:

I don't see the space as that tight - I've seen smaller kitchens and bathrooms in million-plus pound flats in London. 

Yes, pocket-money pied-a-terres.

This isn't one of them.

Indeed, just to point out to anyone who's not ploughed through this whole thread, this flat is in "a tiny village in Hertfordshire".  

Tiny village, tiny flat, makes perfect sense.