Buying a property under 31 sq m

RoisinDove

Alan2020 said:

I thought the last time you asked for advice, the advice was that for your budget, out of London will be the best choice instead of a hovel in London. But the London lifestyle or the lack of it brigade were there telling how great it was.
Whilst I think legally all legitimate houses/flats must be offered a mortgage by lenders, people’s view are the lender should make profits.

Sub 500k apartments in central London are typically basket cases and usually have short leases, huge service charge, noise issues, problems with the freehold/building, horrible areas - Kennington, Hackney, Camden etc etc Always buy with your eyes open.

I'm looking elsewhere too but am also considering my lifestyle and how I live and what I want to do. I don't drive and will probably never drive (medical issues), so somewhere with good public transport is vital. I've had a look at Brighton as well, but it's also pricey (although you do definitely get more for your money there). 
This property is share of freehold, so no lease issue, and is in a nice area. 

RoisinDove

Poster_586329 said:

Also a small flat in Zone 3 doesn't have the same appeal as one in Zone 1! 

What's attractive in Pimlico might not be in Penge. 

(Although this is cheap!: https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/77345145#/ )

It's perfectly possible that it could take an hour to get from zone 3 to somewhere in the centre. 

Yep, I would definitely prefer more square footage, but it's a beautiful building, full of natural light, near green space, near a station, gorgeous high ceilings and other period features...am I going to do much better within my budget? That's what I'm wondering. I've seen places which were technically bigger but felt way, way smaller because they were in a purpose built block with low ceilings and tiny windows. Most properties in London < 300K are absolutely awful. This is lovely, it's just small. My worry is that lenders might not care, and might refuse mortgages because of the size anyway. 
It takes 25-40 minutes to get into central London from this area depending on the line you use. Far better than the hour and a half it would take to commute in from Brighton, and that's on a good day when the trains aren't all messed up. 

RoisinDove

AdrianC said:

RoisinDove said:

It's nowhere near that small! There's a full size kitchen, decent size bedroom and bathroom. It's definitely not 'micro'. I'm wondering if the square footage given on the ad might be a mistake, because it really doesn't feel THAT small.

Let's see the floorplan, then...

I don't want to post the property directly, but the floorplan makes it look small. However, when I actually went to see it, it was head and shoulders above other places I'd seen with more overall space. The high ceilings make a HUGE difference. I saw a place a week ago which was 40 square metres, but almost all the space was the living room, leaving a tiny kitchen and a bedroom without even space for a wardrobe or drawers, which would be a worse lifestyle IMO. The worry is that lenders may not care. 

AnotherJoe

RoisinDove said:

Poster_586329 said:

Also a small flat in Zone 3 doesn't have the same appeal as one in Zone 1! 

What's attractive in Pimlico might not be in Penge. 

(Although this is cheap!: https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/77345145#/ )

It's perfectly possible that it could take an hour to get from zone 3 to somewhere in the centre. 

Yep, I would definitely prefer more square footage, but it's a beautiful building, full of natural light, near green space, near a station, gorgeous high ceilings and other period features...am I going to do much better within my budget? That's what I'm wondering. I've seen places which were technically bigger but felt way, way smaller because they were in a purpose built block with low ceilings and tiny windows. Most properties in London < 300K are absolutely awful. This is lovely, it's just small. My worry is that lenders might not care, and might refuse mortgages because of the size anyway. 
It takes 25-40 minutes to get into central London from this area depending on the line you use. Far better than the hour and a half it would take to commute in from Brighton, and that's on a good day when the trains aren't all messed up. 

How often are you making that journey? Can you work on the train? If you can, not necessarily typing but maybe reading, then does that extra time matter?

If you cant work, and you like that area of London, then maybe its a good buy for you. Especially if you are travelling in frequently. OTOH if its once a week or less, then work location is less relevant, there must be many places you could move to.

One thing, I would measure up myself because I've seen people complain here that they were told a place was X  but actually its less, )  and while that normally doesn't matter, say the difference between 60 and 58, if this threshhold of 30Sq metres is becoming a thing, you dont want to lose out because someones been a bit casual with the measurement and when you sell the survey proves its just under 30.

[Deleted User]

RoisinDove said:

Poster_586329 said:

Also a small flat in Zone 3 doesn't have the same appeal as one in Zone 1! 

What's attractive in Pimlico might not be in Penge. 

(Although this is cheap!: https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/77345145#/ )

It's perfectly possible that it could take an hour to get from zone 3 to somewhere in the centre. 

Yep, I would definitely prefer more square footage, but it's a beautiful building, full of natural light, near green space, near a station, gorgeous high ceilings and other period features...am I going to do much better within my budget? That's what I'm wondering. I've seen places which were technically bigger but felt way, way smaller because they were in a purpose built block with low ceilings and tiny windows. Most properties in London < 300K are absolutely awful. This is lovely, it's just small. My worry is that lenders might not care, and might refuse mortgages because of the size anyway. 
It takes 25-40 minutes to get into central London from this area depending on the line you use. Far better than the hour and a half it would take to commute in from Brighton, and that's on a good day when the trains aren't all messed up. 

Yes it does have some points to recommend it.  I think it's at the back of the house, and you might wake up to birdsong.    As another poster remarked, the lease needs extending as it's down to 58 years.   Think that's £10k-20k to do?

Journey times from zone 2 or 3 south London into the centre are very variable depending on exactly where you're headed.  Yes quick to reach London Bridge, Blackfriars, Victoria, Shoreditch.  But an hour to Russell Square or Notting Hill.   50 minutes to Soho.   And often a long walk to bus stop or station, or a wait while you're there.

The ability to store a bike within a property is something else I'd look for!  I'm also someone who doesn't drive so a bike is important.

RoisinDove

AnotherJoe said:

RoisinDove said:

Poster_586329 said:

Also a small flat in Zone 3 doesn't have the same appeal as one in Zone 1! 

What's attractive in Pimlico might not be in Penge. 

(Although this is cheap!: https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/77345145#/ )

It's perfectly possible that it could take an hour to get from zone 3 to somewhere in the centre. 

Yep, I would definitely prefer more square footage, but it's a beautiful building, full of natural light, near green space, near a station, gorgeous high ceilings and other period features...am I going to do much better within my budget? That's what I'm wondering. I've seen places which were technically bigger but felt way, way smaller because they were in a purpose built block with low ceilings and tiny windows. Most properties in London < 300K are absolutely awful. This is lovely, it's just small. My worry is that lenders might not care, and might refuse mortgages because of the size anyway. 
It takes 25-40 minutes to get into central London from this area depending on the line you use. Far better than the hour and a half it would take to commute in from Brighton, and that's on a good day when the trains aren't all messed up. 

How often are you making that journey? Can you work on the train? If you can, not necessarily typing but maybe reading, then does that extra time matter?

If you cant work, and you like that area of London, then maybe its a good buy for you. Especially if you are travelling in frequently. OTOH if its once a week or less, then work location is less relevant, there must be many places you could move to.

One thing, I would measure up myself because I've seen people complain here that they were told a place was X  but actually its less, )  and while that normally doesn't matter, say the difference between 60 and 58, if this threshhold of 30Sq metres is becoming a thing, you dont want to lose out because someones been a bit casual with the measurement and when you sell the survey proves its just under 30.

I don't know how often I'd be making it tbh, because I have no idea what will happen work wise in the future. Nobody can possibly guarantee that remote working is here to stay, and to be honest, I'd rather not do it full time because I find it isolating and lonely, given that I live alone. I'd find it impossible to work on the train - I can't focus with noise and I get motion sickness, so that would be dead time. Maybe not a dealbreaker, if I can accept that I'll be remote working almost all the time and only going to London once a week, but definitely something to consider, along with the reduced transport links to everywhere else. Going to see my parents up north or friends in Paris is a breeze from London - not so easy when I'd have to first get an unreliable train taking over an hour to get into London in the first place, and then connect on to where I'm going. 
Yes, good point about the space - I'd want to confirm it definitely wasn't under 30. Tbh I'd never have even worried about it had I not just seen that thread!

LAD917

How long are you intending to stay in this property? One of the biggest mistakes I see first-time buyers make is buying something too small and needing to move in a couple of years. The transaction costs of buying and selling are high.  My general rule is if you can't be confident you'll be there for at least five years, don't do it.  Better to rent something like this than buy it.

In my experience, places with very small square footage (outliers, which are standard deviations away from the market average) tend not to appreciate at nearly the same level as places with average square footage.  The buying pool for them will always be more limited, and they become very hard to sell when the market is in a down cycle.  A friend of mine just sold a similar place at a 10% loss, to buy something larger that cost her at least 20% more than if she had either just stretched her budget or waited.

That said, I agree with you that high ceilings make a world of difference.  I had a 50 square metre first-floor flat that fooled even estate agents.  Most people guestimated 60-65.  Everything - bookcases, kitchen cupboards, wardrobes - went to the 3.3 metre ceiling - giving more storage space than some 80 square metre places.  The layout was also near-perfect and could fit full-size everything.

firsttimesellerldn

Alan2020 said:

I thought the last time you asked for advice, the advice was that for your budget, out of London will be the best choice instead of a hovel in London. But the London lifestyle or the lack of it brigade were there telling how great it was.
Whilst I think legally all legitimate houses/flats must be offered a mortgage by lenders, people’s view are the lender should make profits.

Sub 500k apartments in central London are typically basket cases and usually have short leases, huge service charge, noise issues, problems with the freehold/building, horrible areas - Kennington, Hackney, Camden etc etc Always buy with your eyes open.

Come on - there are plenty of decent sub 500k flats in central(ish) London. And plenty of those areas are nice places to live, even if they aren’t your cup of tea. I’ve spent the last five years in a flat which cost me well under 500k in Hackney and it doesn’t have any of those problems, bar a bit of noise which I was well aware of from the outset as it’s by a train line. My flat is over 40m2 but I can see that a well designed 30m2 flat would do for one person, particularly if there were green spaces nearby, and also would be very rentable in future if necessary. 

K_S

RoisinDove said:

K_S said:

@roisindove A non new-build liveable studio flat in London should usually be mortgage-able at mainstream / mainstream-ish rates at 80/85% LTV. The 30sqm requirement is sort of a red line for some lenders and not for others, so I wouldn't fixate on that aspect too much.

Of course, there are other aspects to the mortgageability that are as/more important - lease, access arrangements, is it above/adjacent to commercial, etc.

When you go through the mortgage process, you'll get a good idea of how easy/hard it is and can use that to reassess your decision or renegotiate the price at that stage.

It isn't even a studio - it's a one bed, with a decent size bedroom and bathroom. The only bit that feels small is the living room, tbh. Not above or near commercial, residential street of lovely period houses in a desirable part of zone 3, share of freehold IIRC. I wouldn't have even considered the square footage as an issue until I saw that thread, and now it's got me a bit paranoid!

@roisondave Based on the limited info in your posts, I don't see anything in your posts that indicates that the flat might be particularly hard to mortgage or to sell. But if you are stressing out about the square footage then perhaps rethink.

 One good thing about the house buying process in England is that you will have plenty of opportunities to pull out of the transaction all the way up to exchange. And unfortunately, a lot of potential issues will only ever come to light at the mortgage or conveyancing stages.

Alan2020

firsttimesellerldn said:

Alan2020 said:

I thought the last time you asked for advice, the advice was that for your budget, out of London will be the best choice instead of a hovel in London. But the London lifestyle or the lack of it brigade were there telling how great it was.
Whilst I think legally all legitimate houses/flats must be offered a mortgage by lenders, people’s view are the lender should make profits.

Sub 500k apartments in central London are typically basket cases and usually have short leases, huge service charge, noise issues, problems with the freehold/building, horrible areas - Kennington, Hackney, Camden etc etc Always buy with your eyes open.

Come on - there are plenty of decent sub 500k flats in central(ish) London. And plenty of those areas are nice places to live, even if they aren’t your cup of tea. I’ve spent the last five years in a flat which cost me well under 500k in Hackney and it doesn’t have any of those problems, bar a bit of noise which I was well aware of from the outset as it’s by a train line. My flat is over 40m2 but I can see that a well designed 30m2 flat would do for one person, particularly if there were green spaces nearby, and also would be very rentable in future if necessary. 

Nice and Hackney in the same sentence. Sorry, I don’t think you understand the concept of nice area and anything anyone says will be wasted. The walk from the tube station itself is not safe, neither is the high street. Normal people clench their butts and do that run to their apartment from the tube station on a night out just after midnight when they see the local wildlife. And you pay sub £500k for that. What more can I say.