We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Cautious FTB in my 50s. Should I go for more expensive house? Need pros and cons.
Comments
-
Not seen that one before.. Usually, it is a restriction on sub-letting. A lodger is an excluded occupier (as long as the right form of contract is used), so is very easy to remove.greensalad said: Bear in mind that some mortgages may not allow a lodger
Any language construct that forces such insanity in this case should be abandoned without regrets. –
Erik Aronesty, 2014
Treasure the moments that you have. Savour them for as long as you can for they will never come back again.0 -
Many mortgages will not take income from lodgers into account when working out how much they will lend - but that is a different matter from not permitting you to have a lodger.
But a banker, engaged at enormous expense,Had the whole of their cash in his care.
Lewis Carroll0 -
Bigger may not not always be better. Location, location, location.0
-
I'm with other posters encouraging you to go for the bigger property, certainly if it would suit you better and of course location is also important.PirateSwan said:I am 53 and have just had an offer accepted on a very tiny house with a few issues (tenant being chucked out, only access is via a dark alleyway).
But this bit stood out to me... if the tenants are still in the property, the LL / vendor cannot simply 'chuck them out'. It all depends of where s/he is in the process of eviction, so if it's not already vacant you'd be advised to look elsewhere anyway.2
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards