My obsession with not buying in UK - Prove me wrong

Elliott.T123

RobHT, you seem to be using the argument about job losses as one of your main points for renting being better than buying.


Lets look at that situation in both circumstances.

1. an individual who owns their own home loses their job, as is repeated time and time again all over this forum (and many others) they are a sensible human and have 6 months worth of living costs saved up. They continue to pay the mortgage for 5 months before having to speak to the mortgage company and agreeing some form of reduced payments for a few months.

Most people should have found a job by this stage and the situation is resolved, if they haven't for some reason they then put the house up for sale, sell it, repay the mortgage and keep the equity in the property to help them pay living costs.

2. an individual renting loses their job, lets say for argument sake they also have 6 months living costs, everything carries on for 5 months, they then get into arrears, the landlord starts eviction proceedings. 

Using the same logic as above most people should have found a new job, problem solved great, if they haven't they get evicted, end up moving out with nothing in their pocket, no chance of renting a new property and have to go to the council as homeless and see what support they can be given.

Even if the person didn't have any savings (in both situations) in situation 1 a quick google shows it takes on average 9 months for a repossession, most people would have found a new job in that time. if you were renting and hadn't found a new job in that time you would be kicked out as well.

I struggle to see how renting makes things more flexible for you if you lose your job?

TripleH

Theoretically renting does make it easier to relocate to get a new job in the longer term or more to a cheaper home.

Working from home and longer rental contracts do negate the benefits of that.

KittenChops

RobHT said:

Sistergold said:

lookstraightahead said:

Sistergold said:

For someone with children all these options of moving into a room are not there. With children some landlords who have 4 bed properties seem to still have problems letting rent. When you have pets aswell as children then rental gets even more difficult. Landlords are very funny in the attitudes. So basically some people don’t mind renting but attitudes force them to buy just to be able to live the way they want despite all the expenses. 

You can be inclined to think rental is a solution as you commented about moving into a room being an option as you are on your own and don’t have or plan to have children. Family complicates how one can live. 

When I was in rental I would be onto the children don’t do this don’t do that this is a rental property the landlord will do this or that if you do A or B. The landlord will come for inspections.  If something needs replacing the cheapest version is bought! In the end enough was enough. The inflated house price was a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things to be honest! Now if the children damage something “I will reconstruct the house” like you said. 

Very interesting how you kept on about reconstructing.

Wow your experience of renting was very different from mine. I made some amazing friends in the village where I rented (with kids) who owned their houses. I've moved areas now and I "own" with a small mortgage left (you never truly own til you have the deeds, and I cringe at the level of mortgage some folk have round here with no safety net for life circumstance changes).

why were you so scared of a landlord? Tenants have a lot of protection now.

I was not scared of the landlord, but the landlord I was ever present in a sense. I never felt at home. Average wear and tear not allowed so found myself having to be extra careful with children and even then he almost wanted all my deposit. Only got my deposit as I threatened to sue. 

Asked if he could send his handy man at my expense to add a few “points/places/screws ” for pictures wall clock etc, I was told that “he wants all walls to stay clear”. Had an aunty who I would ask to come to look after the children from time to time and he sent me an email that “he understands someone comes to my flat from time to time can he get their identity and details so that he can add them to the tenancy? Had to reply that she comes for child care purposes and can not be added to my tenancy agreement as she has a place of her own. 🤷‍♀️All this has nothing to do with making friends or not but the actual living in the house. 

Had to be paying 6 months in advance and he wanted to then also see my savings despite being in employment, refused to show savings if I was also being asked to pay 6 months in advance. I had savings but did not see the point as rent already secured for 6 months. To secure had endless questions to answer in the end I had to say I can look elsewhere as I don’t have all year to secure that particular accommodation. He then let me rent the place. This is just one experience, many other annoying but every time I have rented. 

You are right the mortgage debt can be a lot but I personally can not cope with renting if I can avoid it. 

Before that I was in a flat for one year and they put it on the market and were doing viewings while I was still living there. 

Too many possible changes in rental not really bothered if I never fully own it in the end but just want to determine how stay in the place. That’s my excuse for the large debt.

You rented from a landlord that was a ....head.
I rent from agency, no issues as such.

6 months in advance? Aahahhah, no way, typical idiot landlord.
Not even the agency asked my savings, they measure the affordability through the salary and that's it. I gave my bank account statement as a proof of address where I has 20 pounds, that's all they got about my money ahhaha.

Re the bit of your post I've bolded above - are you sure...?  Is the lettings agency noted on your tenancy agreement as the landlord, or are they just the agents for your landlord?

newsgroupmonkey_

Elliott.T123 said:

RobHT, you seem to be using the argument about job losses as one of your main points for renting being better than buying.


Lets look at that situation in both circumstances.

1. an individual who owns their own home loses their job, as is repeated time and time again all over this forum (and many others) they are a sensible human and have 6 months worth of living costs saved up. They continue to pay the mortgage for 5 months before having to speak to the mortgage company and agreeing some form of reduced payments for a few months.

Most people should have found a job by this stage and the situation is resolved, if they haven't for some reason they then put the house up for sale, sell it, repay the mortgage and keep the equity in the property to help them pay living costs.

2. an individual renting loses their job, lets say for argument sake they also have 6 months living costs, everything carries on for 5 months, they then get into arrears, the landlord starts eviction proceedings. 

Using the same logic as above most people should have found a new job, problem solved great, if they haven't they get evicted, end up moving out with nothing in their pocket, no chance of renting a new property and have to go to the council as homeless and see what support they can be given.

Even if the person didn't have any savings (in both situations) in situation 1 a quick google shows it takes on average 9 months for a repossession, most people would have found a new job in that time. if you were renting and hadn't found a new job in that time you would be kicked out as well.

I struggle to see how renting makes things more flexible for you if you lose your job?

I'd be surprised if more than 33% of the UK have 6 months saved. 3 months is recommended and even then, I never had that until recently.

10% of British people have no savings at all.

41% don't have enough to cover a month.

The average boomer has around 3 months.......

Elliott.T123

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

Elliott.T123 said:

RobHT, you seem to be using the argument about job losses as one of your main points for renting being better than buying.


Lets look at that situation in both circumstances.

1. an individual who owns their own home loses their job, as is repeated time and time again all over this forum (and many others) they are a sensible human and have 6 months worth of living costs saved up. They continue to pay the mortgage for 5 months before having to speak to the mortgage company and agreeing some form of reduced payments for a few months.

Most people should have found a job by this stage and the situation is resolved, if they haven't for some reason they then put the house up for sale, sell it, repay the mortgage and keep the equity in the property to help them pay living costs.

2. an individual renting loses their job, lets say for argument sake they also have 6 months living costs, everything carries on for 5 months, they then get into arrears, the landlord starts eviction proceedings. 

Using the same logic as above most people should have found a new job, problem solved great, if they haven't they get evicted, end up moving out with nothing in their pocket, no chance of renting a new property and have to go to the council as homeless and see what support they can be given.

Even if the person didn't have any savings (in both situations) in situation 1 a quick google shows it takes on average 9 months for a repossession, most people would have found a new job in that time. if you were renting and hadn't found a new job in that time you would be kicked out as well.

I struggle to see how renting makes things more flexible for you if you lose your job?

I'd be surprised if more than 33% of the UK have 6 months saved. 3 months is recommended and even then, I never had that until recently.

10% of British people have no savings at all.

41% don't have enough to cover a month.

The average boomer has around 3 months.......

I don't disagree, I was just using the information that is regularly quoted on this forum (and on other financial assistance or news outlets) I would be surprised if the figure was as high as 33% and especially with current cost of living rises I expect that 10% figure to unfortunately rise significantly as people are having to use savings to get by. 

The point still stands though if you have 1 month of reserves (or less). If you own, it will take on average 9 months for a repossession to go through and if you start to repay in that time (as you have found work) the repossession will halt, or you can choose to sell before it reaches that point.

If you rent you may be able to delay eviction for more than 9 months but you will ultimately end up homeless with no capitol to your name. 

The only benefit I can see in this situation is if you were in a short term rental it would be easier to relocate to find a new job. But even then we are doing a lot of if's and but's with the rental length etc.

RobHT

Elliott.T123 said:

RobHT, you seem to be using the argument about job losses as one of your main points for renting being better than buying.


Lets look at that situation in both circumstances.

1. an individual who owns their own home loses their job, as is repeated time and time again all over this forum (and many others) they are a sensible human and have 6 months worth of living costs saved up. They continue to pay the mortgage for 5 months before having to speak to the mortgage company and agreeing some form of reduced payments for a few months.

Most people should have found a job by this stage and the situation is resolved, if they haven't for some reason they then put the house up for sale, sell it, repay the mortgage and keep the equity in the property to help them pay living costs.

2. an individual renting loses their job, lets say for argument sake they also have 6 months living costs, everything carries on for 5 months, they then get into arrears, the landlord starts eviction proceedings. 

Using the same logic as above most people should have found a new job, problem solved great, if they haven't they get evicted, end up moving out with nothing in their pocket, no chance of renting a new property and have to go to the council as homeless and see what support they can be given.

Even if the person didn't have any savings (in both situations) in situation 1 a quick google shows it takes on average 9 months for a repossession, most people would have found a new job in that time. if you were renting and hadn't found a new job in that time you would be kicked out as well.

I struggle to see how renting makes things more flexible for you if you lose your job?

1. Trust me, selling is not that easy, and it's never an assurance as a quick process.

2. For example, I'm searching for a job since 6 months (but I'm still employed)), I didn't find it, I went just close to be accepted in one of them, Covid basically ended, so make the sum of it.
The main reason is due to the global resignation, in summary, people enslaved in IT are changing job massively, hoping for the best in the next one, well, they don't know that it's gonna be the same situation in the new job , this is a shity industry, where slavery is legalized, not checks of any kind etc...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You see, if I look at my recent past of 2y, I could have purchased, wait for the house to be built btw, then eventually get it, not even 6 months inside and I should have sold out, if you consider me with 6 months worth of expenses in my wallet.
I had slightly more than that, not a big difference. If I remained employed as I did, I would have reached 1y worth of expenses.
The house would have been purchased with the help to buy, otherwise, I would have had only 6 months worth of money.

If I lose my job when renting, I downsize the month after, so I "lose" 2 months, then I go in emergency mode and I won't end up homeless and with the credit score destroyed, I simply downsize in a room, as basically almost everyone does in UK for a living.
At the moment, I'd have 1.5y worth of expenses, including these 2 months of thinking and notice theoretically "lost".
Thing is, I can also sell my investments, the part of the portfolio that I could sell in a later stage would be up to 15k. The problem is that my stocks are significantly down at the moment, so, selling wouldn't be efficient .

Also, I have 2 ISA accounts filled up, the problem is that also there my stocks are quite down, but ain't gonna sell that as first, or I can't re-import the money inside these accounts.

Bottom line, at the current portfolio evaluation + savings, in total I'm covered ~50 months worth of comfortable expenses renting a room (ensuite), but ~30 remaining in the place where I am... 

I don't want to end up selling my stocks, I just mentioned it so you understand from where I'm coming from, I have coverage.

KittenChops said:

RobHT said:

Sistergold said:

lookstraightahead said:

Sistergold said:

For someone with children all these options of moving into a room are not there. With children some landlords who have 4 bed properties seem to still have problems letting rent. When you have pets aswell as children then rental gets even more difficult. Landlords are very funny in the attitudes. So basically some people don’t mind renting but attitudes force them to buy just to be able to live the way they want despite all the expenses. 

You can be inclined to think rental is a solution as you commented about moving into a room being an option as you are on your own and don’t have or plan to have children. Family complicates how one can live. 

When I was in rental I would be onto the children don’t do this don’t do that this is a rental property the landlord will do this or that if you do A or B. The landlord will come for inspections.  If something needs replacing the cheapest version is bought! In the end enough was enough. The inflated house price was a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things to be honest! Now if the children damage something “I will reconstruct the house” like you said. 

Very interesting how you kept on about reconstructing.

Wow your experience of renting was very different from mine. I made some amazing friends in the village where I rented (with kids) who owned their houses. I've moved areas now and I "own" with a small mortgage left (you never truly own til you have the deeds, and I cringe at the level of mortgage some folk have round here with no safety net for life circumstance changes).

why were you so scared of a landlord? Tenants have a lot of protection now.

I was not scared of the landlord, but the landlord I was ever present in a sense. I never felt at home. Average wear and tear not allowed so found myself having to be extra careful with children and even then he almost wanted all my deposit. Only got my deposit as I threatened to sue. 

Asked if he could send his handy man at my expense to add a few “points/places/screws ” for pictures wall clock etc, I was told that “he wants all walls to stay clear”. Had an aunty who I would ask to come to look after the children from time to time and he sent me an email that “he understands someone comes to my flat from time to time can he get their identity and details so that he can add them to the tenancy? Had to reply that she comes for child care purposes and can not be added to my tenancy agreement as she has a place of her own. 🤷‍♀️All this has nothing to do with making friends or not but the actual living in the house. 

Had to be paying 6 months in advance and he wanted to then also see my savings despite being in employment, refused to show savings if I was also being asked to pay 6 months in advance. I had savings but did not see the point as rent already secured for 6 months. To secure had endless questions to answer in the end I had to say I can look elsewhere as I don’t have all year to secure that particular accommodation. He then let me rent the place. This is just one experience, many other annoying but every time I have rented. 

You are right the mortgage debt can be a lot but I personally can not cope with renting if I can avoid it. 

Before that I was in a flat for one year and they put it on the market and were doing viewings while I was still living there. 

Too many possible changes in rental not really bothered if I never fully own it in the end but just want to determine how stay in the place. That’s my excuse for the large debt.

You rented from a landlord that was a ....head.
I rent from agency, no issues as such.

6 months in advance? Aahahhah, no way, typical idiot landlord.
Not even the agency asked my savings, they measure the affordability through the salary and that's it. I gave my bank account statement as a proof of address where I has 20 pounds, that's all they got about my money ahhaha.

Re the bit of your post I've bolded above - are you sure...?  Is the lettings agency noted on your tenancy agreement as the landlord, or are they just the agents for your landlord?

I meant that the agency is in the middle, and the owner would be quite of an idiot to take it back, he has another house...
He could sell though, the prices are quite interesting at this time, but there aren't many buyers . Plus, my place is for rent, difficult to explain now, so I'm not worried too much about about the landlord change of plans.

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

Elliott.T123 said:

RobHT, you seem to be using the argument about job losses as one of your main points for renting being better than buying.


Lets look at that situation in both circumstances.

1. an individual who owns their own home loses their job, as is repeated time and time again all over this forum (and many others) they are a sensible human and have 6 months worth of living costs saved up. They continue to pay the mortgage for 5 months before having to speak to the mortgage company and agreeing some form of reduced payments for a few months.

Most people should have found a job by this stage and the situation is resolved, if they haven't for some reason they then put the house up for sale, sell it, repay the mortgage and keep the equity in the property to help them pay living costs.

2. an individual renting loses their job, lets say for argument sake they also have 6 months living costs, everything carries on for 5 months, they then get into arrears, the landlord starts eviction proceedings. 

Using the same logic as above most people should have found a new job, problem solved great, if they haven't they get evicted, end up moving out with nothing in their pocket, no chance of renting a new property and have to go to the council as homeless and see what support they can be given.

Even if the person didn't have any savings (in both situations) in situation 1 a quick google shows it takes on average 9 months for a repossession, most people would have found a new job in that time. if you were renting and hadn't found a new job in that time you would be kicked out as well.

I struggle to see how renting makes things more flexible for you if you lose your job?

I'd be surprised if more than 33% of the UK have 6 months saved. 3 months is recommended and even then, I never had that until recently.

10% of British people have no savings at all.

41% don't have enough to cover a month.

The average boomer has around 3 months.......

50% of people in UK don't have 1k in the bank account, I've read this years ago and I guess it's even worst nowadays.
In this data, also the students were considered, basically, whoever was +18.

Boomers nowadays may have 1000p in their bank account...
The situation is much worst than you mentioned, but I'm glad that someone got my concern about having the funds to buy and to cover your back...

Elliott.T123 said:

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

Elliott.T123 said:

RobHT, you seem to be using the argument about job losses as one of your main points for renting being better than buying.


Lets look at that situation in both circumstances.

1. an individual who owns their own home loses their job, as is repeated time and time again all over this forum (and many others) they are a sensible human and have 6 months worth of living costs saved up. They continue to pay the mortgage for 5 months before having to speak to the mortgage company and agreeing some form of reduced payments for a few months.

Most people should have found a job by this stage and the situation is resolved, if they haven't for some reason they then put the house up for sale, sell it, repay the mortgage and keep the equity in the property to help them pay living costs.

2. an individual renting loses their job, lets say for argument sake they also have 6 months living costs, everything carries on for 5 months, they then get into arrears, the landlord starts eviction proceedings. 

Using the same logic as above most people should have found a new job, problem solved great, if they haven't they get evicted, end up moving out with nothing in their pocket, no chance of renting a new property and have to go to the council as homeless and see what support they can be given.

Even if the person didn't have any savings (in both situations) in situation 1 a quick google shows it takes on average 9 months for a repossession, most people would have found a new job in that time. if you were renting and hadn't found a new job in that time you would be kicked out as well.

I struggle to see how renting makes things more flexible for you if you lose your job?

I'd be surprised if more than 33% of the UK have 6 months saved. 3 months is recommended and even then, I never had that until recently.

10% of British people have no savings at all.

41% don't have enough to cover a month.

The average boomer has around 3 months.......

I don't disagree, I was just using the information that is regularly quoted on this forum (and on other financial assistance or news outlets) I would be surprised if the figure was as high as 33% and especially with current cost of living rises I expect that 10% figure to unfortunately rise significantly as people are having to use savings to get by. 

The point still stands though if you have 1 month of reserves (or less). If you own, it will take on average 9 months for a repossession to go through and if you start to repay in that time (as you have found work) the repossession will halt, or you can choose to sell before it reaches that point.

If you rent you may be able to delay eviction for more than 9 months but you will ultimately end up homeless with no capitol to your name. 

The only benefit I can see in this situation is if you were in a short term rental it would be easier to relocate to find a new job. But even then we are doing a lot of if's and but's with the rental length etc.

Who asks for more than 6 months as minimum term is a scammer, trust me, it's obvious!
As well as who asks more than 1 month deposit!

I do agree in general that rent can become a pain, but imagine the mental crack down if you lose your house, and majority of your equity... !!!!!! can go down even the day after you purchased...
One thing that people don't consider is what it can do to you personally such experience.
If I lose this rental location, I laugh at it, yes it will be hard to do all I need to do to secure a roof upon my head, but man, absolute freedom.

I noticed that no one here mentioned that after you're 55, in many cities there are plans for people that want to buy, nice houses to be honest at half price.
You see, you don't need to think about your investment, assets etc, the government already protects such age ranges and for a damn obvious reason, I don't need to mention it, right?
These schemes didn't reveal any qualification for low income people, so it's really for everyone, as long as it's your first house.

Plus, when I retire I don't wanna stay in central London which already sucks at my age, I wanna stay in an holiday park (lodge etc) and travel every day .
I don't need to stay stuck in one place for my all life, risking obviously bad neighbours, having a huge liability on my back, and see my house becoming an old crappy place.

Between now and my retirement age there is a long way, thing is, I gotta pay anyway a fee monthly and the house it's only a burden, a risk, a liability, more expensive than rent right now, not that easy to sell compared to moving out from my house rented, etc... That's from where I'm coming from.
I should have included all these details in the first post, I really tried to mention everything  

MobileSaver

RobHT said:

I noticed that no one here mentioned that after you're 55, in many cities there are plans for people that want to buy, nice houses to be honest at half price. ... for a damn obvious reason, I don't need to mention it, right?

Er, perhaps that is because you cannot buy a house for half-price. Are you thinking of shared-ownership where you buy a percentage of a property but have to pay rent on the percentage you don't buy? That's very different to what you are implying!

More importantly though you do realise only around 1% of all properties in the UK are available to buy through shared-ownership. So yes, if you're really not fussed about where you live and what you live in then you can take advantage of the scheme but I suspect most people who had a choice would have become utterly fed up with the disadvantages of renting well before they reach 55...

Slithery

It's obvious that you're just trolling now, but OK - I'll bite...

RobHT said:

1. Trust me, selling is not that easy, and it's never an assurance as a quick process.

You can sell and buy in a few weeks. If you're tied into a 12 month rental contract then you can't.

RobHT said:

2. For example, I'm searching for a job since 6 months (but I'm still employed)), I didn't find it, I went just close to be accepted in one of them, Covid basically ended, so make the sum of it.
The main reason is due to the global resignation, in summary, people enslaved in IT are changing job massively, hoping for the best in the next one, well, they don't know that it's gonna be the same situation in the new job , this is a shity industry, where slavery is legalized, not checks of any kind etc...

The reason that you haven't been able to find a new job is simply because there have been better applicants - maybe just people that don't have your poor attitude?

RobHT said:

You see, if I look at my recent past of 2y, I could have purchased, wait for the house to be built btw, then eventually get it, not even 6 months inside and I should have sold out,

If you didn't insist on buying a new build which are usually poorly built you could have moved in much sooner.

RobHT said:

50% of people in UK don't have 1k in the bank account, I've read this years ago and I guess it's even worst nowadays.

Where are you getting your facts from? I have 4 years worth of wages in my savings account.

RobHT said:

Who asks for more than 6 months as minimum term is a scammer, trust me, it's obvious!

No they aren't. Most new tenancies are for a minimum of 12 months.

RobHT said:

As well as who asks more than 1 month deposit!

Nearly no-one. More than 5 weeks deposit would be illegal.

RobHT said:

I do agree in general that rent can become a pain, but imagine the mental crack down if you lose your house, and majority of your equity... !!!!!! can go down even the day after you purchased...

One thing that people don't consider is what it can do to you personally such experience.
If I lose this rental location, I laugh at it, yes it will be hard to do all I need to do to secure a roof upon my head, but man, absolute freedom.

You mean the same freedom that you'd have by selling your current property and buying a new one, just with more money?

RobHT said:

Plus, when I retire I don't wanna stay in central London which already sucks at my age, I wanna stay in an holiday park (lodge etc) and travel every day  

Then just sell the London property that you will have made a massive gain on and buy a mobile home in a holiday park instead.

RobHT said:

Between now and my retirement age there is a long way, thing is, I gotta pay anyway a fee monthly and the house it's only a burden, a risk, a liability, more expensive than rent right now, not that easy to sell compared to moving out from my house rented, etc... That's from where I'm coming from.

If that's where you are coming from then you are deluded. Buying a property would have given you a better return, more security, cheaper than renting and easier to move from.

Any more questions?

RobHT

MobileSaver said:

RobHT said:

I noticed that no one here mentioned that after you're 55, in many cities there are plans for people that want to buy, nice houses to be honest at half price. ... for a damn obvious reason, I don't need to mention it, right?

Er, perhaps that is because you cannot buy a house for half-price. Are you thinking of shared-ownership where you buy a percentage of a property but have to pay rent on the percentage you don't buy? That's very different to what you are implying!

More importantly though you do realise only around 1% of all properties in the UK are available to buy through shared-ownership. So yes, if you're really not fussed about where you live and what you live in then you can take advantage of the scheme but I suspect most people who had a choice would have become utterly fed up with the disadvantages of renting well before they reach 55...

No, shared ownership is a scam, I mean the whole price cut in half. That's how at least they advertised it, I also asked and it was nothing like shared ownership.
They were houses for over 55.
It may have been the case of a wrong description from their side, but that's what I've got from 1-2 agencies.

RobHT

Slithery said:

It's obvious that you're just trolling now, but OK - I'll bite...

RobHT said:

1. Trust me, selling is not that easy, and it's never an assurance as a quick process.

You can sell and buy in a few weeks.I f you're tied into a 12 month rental contract then you can't.

RobHT said:

2. For example, I'm searching for a job since 6 months (but I'm still employed)), I didn't find it, I went just close to be accepted in one of them, Covid basically ended, so make the sum of it.
The main reason is due to the global resignation, in summary, people enslaved in IT are changing job massively, hoping for the best in the next one, well, they don't know that it's gonna be the same situation in the new job , this is a shity industry, where slavery is legalized, not checks of any kind etc...

The reason that you haven't been able to find a new job is simply because there have been better applicants - maybe just people that don't have your poor attitude?

RobHT said:

You see, if I look at my recent past of 2y, I could have purchased, wait for the house to be built btw, then eventually get it, not even 6 months inside and I should have sold out,

If you didn't insist on buying a new build which are usually poorly built you could have moved in much sooner.

RobHT said:

50% of people in UK don't have 1k in the bank account, I've read this years ago and I guess it's even worst nowadays.

Where are you getting your facts from? I have 4 years worth of wages in my savings account.

RobHT said:

Who asks for more than 6 months as minimum term is a scammer, trust me, it's obvious!

No they aren't. Most new tenancies are for a minimum of 12 months.

RobHT said:

As well as who asks more than 1 month deposit!

Nearly no-one. More than 5 weeks deposit would be illegal.

RobHT said:

I do agree in general that rent can become a pain, but imagine the mental crack down if you lose your house, and majority of your equity... !!!!!! can go down even the day after you purchased...

One thing that people don't consider is what it can do to you personally such experience.
If I lose this rental location, I laugh at it, yes it will be hard to do all I need to do to secure a roof upon my head, but man, absolute freedom.

You mean the same freedom that you'd have by selling your current property and buying a new one, just with more money?

RobHT said:

Plus, when I retire I don't wanna stay in central London which already sucks at my age, I wanna stay in an holiday park (lodge etc) and travel every day  

Then just sell the London property that you will have made a massive gain on and buy a mobile home in a holiday park instead.

RobHT said:

Between now and my retirement age there is a long way, thing is, I gotta pay anyway a fee monthly and the house it's only a burden, a risk, a liability, more expensive than rent right now, not that easy to sell compared to moving out from my house rented, etc... That's from where I'm coming from.

If that's where you are coming from then you are deluded. Buying a property would have given you a better return, more security, cheaper than renting and easier to move from.

Any more questions?

Thanks to have spent the time to reply.
You didn't convince me, but I appreciate it.
Reasons why are: high purchase prices, price higher than the rent, liability on the full amount, no freedom (from my perspective).

If you tell me to buy around Edinburgh or Manchester, I'd probably do it coming from the money made in London, but again, I'll depend from my job anyway, it' just an illusion.
I'm not gonna pay the full amount in cash, I'm not that rich , so I need to change my expenses in order to match the local salaries afterwards, which barely make it up to the mortgage... Did I make any mistake here? I don't want to live paying the mortgage, I want to live to live, fearless and with freedom.
I move whenever I need, following opportunities and my comfort zone, until now, this is what saved me, quite a few years of proven history .

My point of view is the following, as long as I can sustain my life, it's pointless thinking about buying or renting, I just need to pay a fee to someone, nothing else, it's purely black and white.
Reason why I have so many insurances and to be honest, without my salary, they would be too expensive...