No option to buy? Single people

Thrugelmir

littlemissbliss said:

 as my lone salary wouldn’t allow me to borrow more then £166,000 and in surrey you can’t buy anything with that – even further out. I can’t do help to buy as the properties are still stupidly high. 

I left Surrey as did many of friends many decades ago. Surrey has never been cheap. Always been commuter land for London.

ts21

Mickey666 said:

littlemissbliss said:

Mickey666 said:

littlemissbliss said:

I just wanted to know if there was anyone else in my situation.

I am a single female – and struggling like hell to get on the property ladder.

I am on a 37,000 pa salary and saving on average £700 month towards my deposit.

Unfortunately, Shared Ownership would be my only option as my lone salary wouldn’t allow me to borrow more then £166,000 and in surrey you can’t buy anything with that – even further out. I can’t do help to buy as the properties are still stupidly high. However, the issue I am running into with Shared ownership is I am never classed a ‘Priority’ – even on one bedrooms.

I mean its getting a tad ridiculous. I would have thought it would be based on if you could afford it, and reading that couples are classed more of a priority really annoys me.  I am on the edge of just giving up as there doesn't seem to be an option for those in my situation. At my age my friends have families so a house mate is out of the question. 

Anyone else finding this?

Yes.  I had exactly the same issue, though from the male perspective.  I was earning decent money as a graduate but my salary would only fund enough of a mortgage to buy really grotty houses in grotty areas.  However, as soon as my GF graduated and got a job with a similar salary the increased joint mortgage we could suddenly afford opened up a whole new area of opportunity and we were able to buy a decent terraced house in a lovely village in the home counties commuter belt.  We've never looked back.

Oh yes, this was in the early 1980s.

My point is that a single FTB has always found it harder to buy a house than a couple - for obvious reasons.  In that respect, it's less to do with changes to the housing market over the past 40 years and more to do with changing demographics.

My nieces/nephews are all married, as are many of my friend's children and they've all managed to buy their first homes without commanding huge salaries.  They are mostly teachers, nurses, council office staff, uni admin, retail managers, that sort of thing - not high-flying corporate lawyers or bankers in the city.

I used to wonder how it is that with all the 'problems' of ever-rising house prices these 'ordinary' couples have managed to buy their first homes in their mid-late 20's.  I'm beginning to conclude it is precisely BECAUSE they are married, or at least partners sharing their finances.  

I'm in no way denying the house market is not tough for FTBs.  It clearly is and I can remember how frustrating it can be . . . . I'm just pointing out that this is nothing new or specific to today's market conditions.  T'was ever thus.

No i agree....its just frustrating because I feel I have to rush into a relationship - and lets face it. Its not fair on the guy either. I mean already id have to take a mortgage out over 20 years due to my age (40), and the older you get the harder it is. There should be more help for those who are single

I'm sure its frustrating but - and this will sound harsh - but it's just a fact of life.  Two people can live cheaper than one, therefore couples have an inherent financial advantage over singles.  It's not active discrimination, it's just maths.

I understand your wishing for more 'help' for single people but what do you imagine this sort of help should be?  Benefits for single people?  Tax breaks for single people?  Who would pay for all this?  And wouldn't it just mean fewer couples would get married so they could take advantage of whater 'help' you think should be given to single people?  And what then?  How would you define 'a couple' anyway?  Two people living in the same house, regardless of their actual relationship? 

It's all just a fundamental fact of life that can't be changed by social engineering.

It’s not JUST maths. There are tax breaks for married people beyond that make it more financially beneficial beyond the basics of sharing costs when living with someone else. Why should a single person’s taxes be used to make life easier for married couples, when they already benefit from sharing expenses by living together? It’s like the single person’s council tax discount which is only 25% - why should a single person only pay 25% less than a family of 5? There are plenty of structural disadvantages to being single which send out the message that society values the single person less than someone who is part of a couple.

leosummer

littlemissbliss said:

I just wanted to know if there was anyone else in my situation.

I am a single female – and struggling like hell to get on the property ladder.

I am on a 37,000 pa salary and saving on average £700 month towards my deposit.

Unfortunately, Shared Ownership would be my only option as my lone salary wouldn’t allow me to borrow more then £166,000 and in surrey you can’t buy anything with that – even further out. I can’t do help to buy as the properties are still stupidly high. However, the issue I am running into with Shared ownership is I am never classed a ‘Priority’ – even on one bedrooms.

I mean its getting a tad ridiculous. I would have thought it would be based on if you could afford it, and reading that couples are classed more of a priority really annoys me.  I am on the edge of just giving up as there doesn't seem to be an option for those in my situation. At my age my friends have families so a house mate is out of the question. 

Anyone else finding this?

I am a single FTB on a 3 year journey to save up my first home. The past year has not been easy as couples and other asset rich people certainly out saved most of FTB, plus the current housing boom made me feel that I have saved nothing over the past 1+ years. 

I have tried to make an offer on a property, but got rejected because the others FTB is a cash buyer. . . I am counting on the end of SDLT holiday and everything back to "normal" after September. If there is any comfort, I feel that the market in my area slowed down a little, hopefully it is not a wishful thinking. 

theoretica

On the other hand benefits are lower for a couple than two single people, and indeed someone in a couple on low income may not be eligible for benefits at all if their partner earns 'too much'.  Some of the social engineering encouragement towards couples is because of an expectation of the government saving money on average. 

Sistergold

Dear @littlemissbliss
Another single one here cheering you on. I would just agree with you that the best is to just continue saving and hope for the best. I personally feel that this is not quite the right time to buy a house. On a personal level I feel waiting is best not that I am predicting that house prices will go down which they may but that waiting will mean you buy without the pressure of a market where buyers and sellers are trying to beat the stamp duty deadline. This stamp duty deadline is leading to so much bidding it will cause stress to anyone. 

If I were you I will save and wait and then start looking again after this stamp duty frenzy is over. Even if prices should go up at least it will be normal buying and selling pressures at hand. Even if for a long time you can not buy having several thousands just waiting will be a good thing! If at retirement you have not yet bought in London, you can then go up north with your saved up cash I guess(this is worst case scenario)! Having said that where there is a will there is eventually a way and I do believe that one way or the other you will buy a house although right now it seems impossible! Rules around shared ownership, or help to buy could change, other schemes could come into play, prices could go down, who knows but saving for the opportunity is what you need. 

Just a while back I was in your shoes getting out of bad 20plus year old marriage, well with children on top and also being single and wanting to buy in London. 

As a single I would not advice you trying to hinge your buying to meeting up with someone new as we know that does not guarantee you a roof over your head in the long run! Infact best hold on to the dream of buying alone! Once you manage it single it’s the best especially after a bad experience. Financially as a single it’s double the stress but I find it worth it as I don’t stress about what the so called partner is going to do! It’s just accepting one salary is just that and it might just need to take double the time and effort to get there that’s all but you will get there in the end! 

Good luck! 

moneysavinghero

Mickey666 said:

ts21 said:

Mickey666 said:

littlemissbliss said:

Mickey666 said:

littlemissbliss said:

I just wanted to know if there was anyone else in my situation.

I am a single female – and struggling like hell to get on the property ladder.

I am on a 37,000 pa salary and saving on average £700 month towards my deposit.

Unfortunately, Shared Ownership would be my only option as my lone salary wouldn’t allow me to borrow more then £166,000 and in surrey you can’t buy anything with that – even further out. I can’t do help to buy as the properties are still stupidly high. However, the issue I am running into with Shared ownership is I am never classed a ‘Priority’ – even on one bedrooms.

I mean its getting a tad ridiculous. I would have thought it would be based on if you could afford it, and reading that couples are classed more of a priority really annoys me.  I am on the edge of just giving up as there doesn't seem to be an option for those in my situation. At my age my friends have families so a house mate is out of the question. 

Anyone else finding this?

Yes.  I had exactly the same issue, though from the male perspective.  I was earning decent money as a graduate but my salary would only fund enough of a mortgage to buy really grotty houses in grotty areas.  However, as soon as my GF graduated and got a job with a similar salary the increased joint mortgage we could suddenly afford opened up a whole new area of opportunity and we were able to buy a decent terraced house in a lovely village in the home counties commuter belt.  We've never looked back.

Oh yes, this was in the early 1980s.

My point is that a single FTB has always found it harder to buy a house than a couple - for obvious reasons.  In that respect, it's less to do with changes to the housing market over the past 40 years and more to do with changing demographics.

My nieces/nephews are all married, as are many of my friend's children and they've all managed to buy their first homes without commanding huge salaries.  They are mostly teachers, nurses, council office staff, uni admin, retail managers, that sort of thing - not high-flying corporate lawyers or bankers in the city.

I used to wonder how it is that with all the 'problems' of ever-rising house prices these 'ordinary' couples have managed to buy their first homes in their mid-late 20's.  I'm beginning to conclude it is precisely BECAUSE they are married, or at least partners sharing their finances.  

I'm in no way denying the house market is not tough for FTBs.  It clearly is and I can remember how frustrating it can be . . . . I'm just pointing out that this is nothing new or specific to today's market conditions.  T'was ever thus.

No i agree....its just frustrating because I feel I have to rush into a relationship - and lets face it. Its not fair on the guy either. I mean already id have to take a mortgage out over 20 years due to my age (40), and the older you get the harder it is. There should be more help for those who are single

I'm sure its frustrating but - and this will sound harsh - but it's just a fact of life.  Two people can live cheaper than one, therefore couples have an inherent financial advantage over singles.  It's not active discrimination, it's just maths.

I understand your wishing for more 'help' for single people but what do you imagine this sort of help should be?  Benefits for single people?  Tax breaks for single people?  Who would pay for all this?  And wouldn't it just mean fewer couples would get married so they could take advantage of whater 'help' you think should be given to single people?  And what then?  How would you define 'a couple' anyway?  Two people living in the same house, regardless of their actual relationship? 

It's all just a fundamental fact of life that can't be changed by social engineering.

It’s not JUST maths. There are tax breaks for married people beyond that make it more financially beneficial beyond the basics of sharing costs when living with someone else. Why should a single person’s taxes be used to make life easier for married couples, when they already benefit from sharing expenses by living together? It’s like the single person’s council tax discount which is only 25% - why should a single person only pay 25% less than a family of 5? There are plenty of structural disadvantages to being single which send out the message that society values the single person less than someone who is part of a couple.

Fair points, but those are just more examples of social engineering - in this case to encourage 'the nuclear family', which is generally regarded as being 'a good thing' for bringing up children etc etc (well, historically at least).

As for CT discounts discriminating against single people, I seem to remember that a former PM wanted to do away with 'council rates' and replace them with a per-capita 'community charge' set by local councils.  What could be fairer than that?

Of course, the subsequent rioting in the streets quickly put an end to this 'poll tax', which suggests that fairness is not always politically acceptable.  Funny old world!

I think it was more the fact that everyone, whether you were the lord of the manor, a billionaire or a street cleaner you all paid the same amount of poll tax that caused the riots.

almanak

littlemissbliss said:

I just wanted to know if there was anyone else in my situation.

I am a single female – and struggling like hell to get on the property ladder.

I am on a 37,000 pa salary and saving on average £700 month towards my deposit.

Unfortunately, Shared Ownership would be my only option as my lone salary wouldn’t allow me to borrow more then £166,000 and in surrey you can’t buy anything with that – even further out. I can’t do help to buy as the properties are still stupidly high. However, the issue I am running into with Shared ownership is I am never classed a ‘Priority’ – even on one bedrooms.

I mean its getting a tad ridiculous. I would have thought it would be based on if you could afford it, and reading that couples are classed more of a priority really annoys me.  I am on the edge of just giving up as there doesn't seem to be an option for those in my situation. At my age my friends have families so a house mate is out of the question. 

Anyone else finding this?

Did you manage to build your credit history? I am in a similar situation but despite a proper credit score this is an obstacle.

Getting_greyer

Mickey666 said:

moneysavinghero said:

Mickey666 said:

ts21 said:

Mickey666 said:

littlemissbliss said:

Mickey666 said:

littlemissbliss said:

I just wanted to know if there was anyone else in my situation.

I am a single female – and struggling like hell to get on the property ladder.

I am on a 37,000 pa salary and saving on average £700 month towards my deposit.

Unfortunately, Shared Ownership would be my only option as my lone salary wouldn’t allow me to borrow more then £166,000 and in surrey you can’t buy anything with that – even further out. I can’t do help to buy as the properties are still stupidly high. However, the issue I am running into with Shared ownership is I am never classed a ‘Priority’ – even on one bedrooms.

I mean its getting a tad ridiculous. I would have thought it would be based on if you could afford it, and reading that couples are classed more of a priority really annoys me.  I am on the edge of just giving up as there doesn't seem to be an option for those in my situation. At my age my friends have families so a house mate is out of the question. 

Anyone else finding this?

Yes.  I had exactly the same issue, though from the male perspective.  I was earning decent money as a graduate but my salary would only fund enough of a mortgage to buy really grotty houses in grotty areas.  However, as soon as my GF graduated and got a job with a similar salary the increased joint mortgage we could suddenly afford opened up a whole new area of opportunity and we were able to buy a decent terraced house in a lovely village in the home counties commuter belt.  We've never looked back.

Oh yes, this was in the early 1980s.

My point is that a single FTB has always found it harder to buy a house than a couple - for obvious reasons.  In that respect, it's less to do with changes to the housing market over the past 40 years and more to do with changing demographics.

My nieces/nephews are all married, as are many of my friend's children and they've all managed to buy their first homes without commanding huge salaries.  They are mostly teachers, nurses, council office staff, uni admin, retail managers, that sort of thing - not high-flying corporate lawyers or bankers in the city.

I used to wonder how it is that with all the 'problems' of ever-rising house prices these 'ordinary' couples have managed to buy their first homes in their mid-late 20's.  I'm beginning to conclude it is precisely BECAUSE they are married, or at least partners sharing their finances.  

I'm in no way denying the house market is not tough for FTBs.  It clearly is and I can remember how frustrating it can be . . . . I'm just pointing out that this is nothing new or specific to today's market conditions.  T'was ever thus.

No i agree....its just frustrating because I feel I have to rush into a relationship - and lets face it. Its not fair on the guy either. I mean already id have to take a mortgage out over 20 years due to my age (40), and the older you get the harder it is. There should be more help for those who are single

I'm sure its frustrating but - and this will sound harsh - but it's just a fact of life.  Two people can live cheaper than one, therefore couples have an inherent financial advantage over singles.  It's not active discrimination, it's just maths.

I understand your wishing for more 'help' for single people but what do you imagine this sort of help should be?  Benefits for single people?  Tax breaks for single people?  Who would pay for all this?  And wouldn't it just mean fewer couples would get married so they could take advantage of whater 'help' you think should be given to single people?  And what then?  How would you define 'a couple' anyway?  Two people living in the same house, regardless of their actual relationship? 

It's all just a fundamental fact of life that can't be changed by social engineering.

It’s not JUST maths. There are tax breaks for married people beyond that make it more financially beneficial beyond the basics of sharing costs when living with someone else. Why should a single person’s taxes be used to make life easier for married couples, when they already benefit from sharing expenses by living together? It’s like the single person’s council tax discount which is only 25% - why should a single person only pay 25% less than a family of 5? There are plenty of structural disadvantages to being single which send out the message that society values the single person less than someone who is part of a couple.

Fair points, but those are just more examples of social engineering - in this case to encourage 'the nuclear family', which is generally regarded as being 'a good thing' for bringing up children etc etc (well, historically at least).

As for CT discounts discriminating against single people, I seem to remember that a former PM wanted to do away with 'council rates' and replace them with a per-capita 'community charge' set by local councils.  What could be fairer than that?

Of course, the subsequent rioting in the streets quickly put an end to this 'poll tax', which suggests that fairness is not always politically acceptable.  Funny old world!

I think it was more the fact that everyone, whether you were the lord of the manor, a billionaire or a street cleaner you all paid the same amount of poll tax that caused the riots.

Perhaps it was, but that would be the politics of envy kicking in.  I thought rates or CT is supposed to pay for the local services used by people.  Would the lord of the manor used the local library more than the street cleaner, or require more from the fire service or police, or the local schools, or the roads, etc?  Probably not . . . so why not share the cost equally?

Because, you say, the lord of the manor is richer than the street cleaner, so can afford to pay more.  That might be true, but is it fair?

And if it is fair, then why bother with rates/CT at all?  Why not cut right to the chase and implement some form of local income tax?  That way those earning more would pay more.  Would that satisfy your idea of 'fair' (even though that has already been implemented through the tax system)?

Theory of Moral Sentiments 😂

Hope it works out for you OP.

GaleSF63

I think it was more the fact that everyone, whether you were the lord of the manor, a billionaire or a street cleaner you all paid the same amount of poll tax that caused the riots.

I got the impression - at the time - that it was more to do with every adult being targeted, including all those who had never given a thought to the payment of rates because they weren't householders. Suddenly they were liable and didn't like it. 

wannabe_a_saver

Mickey666 said:

moneysavinghero said:

Mickey666 said:

ts21 said:

Mickey666 said:

littlemissbliss said:

Mickey666 said:

littlemissbliss said:

I just wanted to know if there was anyone else in my situation.

I am a single female – and struggling like hell to get on the property ladder.

I am on a 37,000 pa salary and saving on average £700 month towards my deposit.

Unfortunately, Shared Ownership would be my only option as my lone salary wouldn’t allow me to borrow more then £166,000 and in surrey you can’t buy anything with that – even further out. I can’t do help to buy as the properties are still stupidly high. However, the issue I am running into with Shared ownership is I am never classed a ‘Priority’ – even on one bedrooms.

I mean its getting a tad ridiculous. I would have thought it would be based on if you could afford it, and reading that couples are classed more of a priority really annoys me.  I am on the edge of just giving up as there doesn't seem to be an option for those in my situation. At my age my friends have families so a house mate is out of the question. 

Anyone else finding this?

Yes.  I had exactly the same issue, though from the male perspective.  I was earning decent money as a graduate but my salary would only fund enough of a mortgage to buy really grotty houses in grotty areas.  However, as soon as my GF graduated and got a job with a similar salary the increased joint mortgage we could suddenly afford opened up a whole new area of opportunity and we were able to buy a decent terraced house in a lovely village in the home counties commuter belt.  We've never looked back.

Oh yes, this was in the early 1980s.

My point is that a single FTB has always found it harder to buy a house than a couple - for obvious reasons.  In that respect, it's less to do with changes to the housing market over the past 40 years and more to do with changing demographics.

My nieces/nephews are all married, as are many of my friend's children and they've all managed to buy their first homes without commanding huge salaries.  They are mostly teachers, nurses, council office staff, uni admin, retail managers, that sort of thing - not high-flying corporate lawyers or bankers in the city.

I used to wonder how it is that with all the 'problems' of ever-rising house prices these 'ordinary' couples have managed to buy their first homes in their mid-late 20's.  I'm beginning to conclude it is precisely BECAUSE they are married, or at least partners sharing their finances.  

I'm in no way denying the house market is not tough for FTBs.  It clearly is and I can remember how frustrating it can be . . . . I'm just pointing out that this is nothing new or specific to today's market conditions.  T'was ever thus.

No i agree....its just frustrating because I feel I have to rush into a relationship - and lets face it. Its not fair on the guy either. I mean already id have to take a mortgage out over 20 years due to my age (40), and the older you get the harder it is. There should be more help for those who are single

I'm sure its frustrating but - and this will sound harsh - but it's just a fact of life.  Two people can live cheaper than one, therefore couples have an inherent financial advantage over singles.  It's not active discrimination, it's just maths.

I understand your wishing for more 'help' for single people but what do you imagine this sort of help should be?  Benefits for single people?  Tax breaks for single people?  Who would pay for all this?  And wouldn't it just mean fewer couples would get married so they could take advantage of whater 'help' you think should be given to single people?  And what then?  How would you define 'a couple' anyway?  Two people living in the same house, regardless of their actual relationship? 

It's all just a fundamental fact of life that can't be changed by social engineering.

It’s not JUST maths. There are tax breaks for married people beyond that make it more financially beneficial beyond the basics of sharing costs when living with someone else. Why should a single person’s taxes be used to make life easier for married couples, when they already benefit from sharing expenses by living together? It’s like the single person’s council tax discount which is only 25% - why should a single person only pay 25% less than a family of 5? There are plenty of structural disadvantages to being single which send out the message that society values the single person less than someone who is part of a couple.

Fair points, but those are just more examples of social engineering - in this case to encourage 'the nuclear family', which is generally regarded as being 'a good thing' for bringing up children etc etc (well, historically at least).

As for CT discounts discriminating against single people, I seem to remember that a former PM wanted to do away with 'council rates' and replace them with a per-capita 'community charge' set by local councils.  What could be fairer than that?

Of course, the subsequent rioting in the streets quickly put an end to this 'poll tax', which suggests that fairness is not always politically acceptable.  Funny old world!

I think it was more the fact that everyone, whether you were the lord of the manor, a billionaire or a street cleaner you all paid the same amount of poll tax that caused the riots.

Because, you say, the lord of the manor is richer than the street cleaner, so can afford to pay more.  That might be true, but is it fair?

Yes, its practically the definition of fairness.