Is buying a flat above a shop worth it in a good location?

kingstreet

TinyDragon1990 said:

We wouldn't want to have to go with a specialist provider who'd charge higher rates, or run the risk of it losing value if our buyers couldn't get a mortgage in future.

In which case, you shouldn't proceed as neither of the above can be totally ruled out.

Exodi

diystarter7 said:

Have you considered riots and the looting and burning of shops? If you have, then good but
if not, it's something I'd consider.

A friend of mine lived in Greenwich, a flat above a shop they were on the 5th floor
and this bloke got shot by the police (this is years ago) shops were looted but thankfully not
firebombed but were in other areas. Looters were trying to break into the building that had double glass doors but residents stood their ground.

Personally, I'd avoid a flat over a shop

Well that escalated quickly.

OP is above a cafe, so unless the looters have a penchant for tea bags, I think this is pretty low risk but I take your point. Has the OP also considered that the cafe may become a secret labatory where an alien master race may be incepted and bred, whose primary goal is to copy the appearance of humans, so that they may slowly replace the human race without our noticing. Being just above the Cafe would mean the secret alien master race would probably look to consume you first.

Personally, I'd avoid a flat within 100 miles of civilisation.

diystarter7

Exodi said:

diystarter7 said:

Have you considered riots and the looting and burning of shops? If you have, then good but
if not, it's something I'd consider.

A friend of mine lived in Greenwich, a flat above a shop they were on the 5th floor
and this bloke got shot by the police (this is years ago) shops were looted but thankfully not
firebombed but were in other areas. Looters were trying to break into the building that had double glass doors but residents stood their ground.

Personally, I'd avoid a flat over a shop

Well that escalated quickly.

OP is above a cafe, so unless the looters have a penchant for tea bags, I 

Incredible.

Are you saying looters hell-bent on looting, robbing, and destroying would say, "hey chaps, ignore this one yaa, its only a cafe;," lol.

I must give you a heads up re looters, rioters that are determined to cause death and destruction.

I'm sure you won't recall this but looters in the riot I referred to smashed their way into a shoe shop and some were seeing picking up shoes where only one shoe instead of pairs were on the shelf. The other example was a burger shop.

Why on earth do you think most lenders avoid lending out on property above shops, lol.

Take care.

user1977

diystarter7 said:

Exodi said:

diystarter7 said:

Have you considered riots and the looting and burning of shops? If you have, then good but
if not, it's something I'd consider.

A friend of mine lived in Greenwich, a flat above a shop they were on the 5th floor
and this bloke got shot by the police (this is years ago) shops were looted but thankfully not
firebombed but were in other areas. Looters were trying to break into the building that had double glass doors but residents stood their ground.

Personally, I'd avoid a flat over a shop

Well that escalated quickly.

OP is above a cafe, so unless the looters have a penchant for tea bags, I 

Why on earth do you think most lenders avoid lending out on property above shops, lol.

Because of nothing to do with the risk of them being fire-bombed in a riot. Even in inner city London, what proportion of commercial premises do you think that's ever happened to?

The reason they don't lend is because of more mundane disturbance and loss of amenity caused by noise, smells, etc, and the tendency of commercial occupiers not to want to contribute towards common charges.

diystarter7

user1977 said:

diystarter7 said:

Exodi said:

diystarter7 said:

Have you considered riots and the looting and burning of shops? If you have, then good but
if not, it's something I'd consider.

A friend of mine lived in Greenwich, a flat above a shop they were on the 5th floor
and this bloke got shot by the police (this is years ago) shops were looted but thankfully not
firebombed but were in other areas. Looters were trying to break into the building that had double glass doors but residents stood their ground.

Personally, I'd avoid a flat over a shop

Well that escalated quickly.

OP is above a cafe, so unless the looters have a penchant for tea bags, I 

Why on earth do you think most lenders avoid lending out on property above shops, lol.

Because of nothing to do with the risk of them being fire-bombed in a riot. Even in inner city London, what proportion of commercial premises do you think that's ever happened to?

The reason they don't lend is because of more mundane disturbance and loss of amenity caused by noise, smells, etc, and the tendency of commercial occupiers not to want to contribute towards common charges.

Where is the evidence? I can supply the evidence of shops being looted/smashed/robbed/fire-bombed etc etc., therefore, resulting in a much less saleable and in turn a bigger risk. A risk many established lenders will not entertain. 

Quiet frankly the reason you give does not add up as lenders are there to make money so why write of millions of possible loans amounting to tens of billions, lol.

I'll let you have the last word if you wish.

Section62

diystarter7 said:

Exodi said:

diystarter7 said:

Have you considered riots and the looting and burning of shops? If you have, then good but
if not, it's something I'd consider.

A friend of mine lived in Greenwich, a flat above a shop they were on the 5th floor
and this bloke got shot by the police (this is years ago) shops were looted but thankfully not
firebombed but were in other areas. Looters were trying to break into the building that had double glass doors but residents stood their ground.

Personally, I'd avoid a flat over a shop

Well that escalated quickly.

OP is above a cafe, so unless the looters have a penchant for tea bags, I 

Incredible....

The only thing I find incredible is how unfortunate your family and friends are.

Nobody deserves such bad luck.

So you're talking about the 2011 London riots?

user1977

diystarter7 said:

user1977 said:

diystarter7 said:

Exodi said:

diystarter7 said:

Have you considered riots and the looting and burning of shops? If you have, then good but
if not, it's something I'd consider.

A friend of mine lived in Greenwich, a flat above a shop they were on the 5th floor
and this bloke got shot by the police (this is years ago) shops were looted but thankfully not
firebombed but were in other areas. Looters were trying to break into the building that had double glass doors but residents stood their ground.

Personally, I'd avoid a flat over a shop

Well that escalated quickly.

OP is above a cafe, so unless the looters have a penchant for tea bags, I 

Why on earth do you think most lenders avoid lending out on property above shops, lol.

Because of nothing to do with the risk of them being fire-bombed in a riot. Even in inner city London, what proportion of commercial premises do you think that's ever happened to?

The reason they don't lend is because of more mundane disturbance and loss of amenity caused by noise, smells, etc, and the tendency of commercial occupiers not to want to contribute towards common charges.

Where is the evidence? I can supply the evidence of shops being looted/smashed/robbed/fire-bombed etc etc., therefore, resulting in a much less saleable and in turn a bigger risk. A risk many established lenders will not entertain. 

Quiet frankly the reason you give does not add up as lenders are there to make money so why write of millions of possible loans amounting to tens of billions, lol.

It's the same rationale as for other types of properties which don't meet lenders' lending criteria. They want properties which are of a predictable value and will be easily marketable if they have to sell. The reasons buyers don't like flats above shops are similar to the reasons they don't want to live across the road from a pub. It's nothing to do with them fearing a riot in their street.

Section62

diystarter7 said:

user1977 said:

diystarter7 said:

Why on earth do you think most lenders avoid lending out on property above shops, lol.

Because of nothing to do with the risk of them being fire-bombed in a riot. Even in inner city London, what proportion of commercial premises do you think that's ever happened to?

The reason they don't lend is because of more mundane disturbance and loss of amenity caused by noise, smells, etc, and the tendency of commercial occupiers not to want to contribute towards common charges.

Where is the evidence? I can supply the evidence of shops being looted/smashed/robbed/fire-bombed etc etc., therefore, resulting in a much less saleable and in turn a bigger risk. A risk many established lenders will not entertain. 

Go on then.

Anything about this riot in Greenwich?

diystarter7

user1977 said:

diystarter7 said:

user1977 said:

diystarter7 said:

Exodi said:

diystarter7 said:

Have you considered riots and the looting and burning of shops? If you have, then good but
if not, it's something I'd consider.

A friend of mine lived in Greenwich, a flat above a shop they were on the 5th floor
and this bloke got shot by the police (this is years ago) shops were looted but thankfully not
firebombed but were in other areas. Looters were trying to break into the building that had double glass doors but residents stood their ground.

Personally, I'd avoid a flat over a shop

Well that escalated quickly.

OP is above a cafe, so unless the looters have a penchant for tea bags, I 

Why on earth do you think most lenders avoid lending out on property above shops, lol.

Because of nothing to do with the risk of them being fire-bombed in a riot. Even in inner city London, what proportion of commercial premises do you think that's ever happened to?

The reason they don't lend is because of more mundane disturbance and loss of amenity caused by noise, smells, etc, and the tendency of commercial occupiers not to want to contribute towards common charges.

Where is the evidence? I can supply the evidence of shops being looted/smashed/robbed/fire-bombed etc etc., therefore, resulting in a much less saleable and in turn a bigger risk. A risk many established lenders will not entertain. 

Quiet frankly the reason you give does not add up as lenders are there to make money so why write of millions of possible loans amounting to tens of billions, lol.

It's the same rationale as for other types of properties which don't meet lenders' lending criteria. They want properties which are of a predictable value and will be easily marketable if they have to sell. The reasons buyers don't like flats above shops are similar to the reasons they don't want to live across the road from a pub. It's nothing to do with them fearing a riot in their street.

Incredible. If you really believe that then I'm sorry, but I give up.
Quite frankly what you are saying is that shops/commercial places etc are not at a greater risk than houses in non-cemmercial areas, pull the other one

No right-minded lender would forgo the opportunities
 to make masses of profits for not lending money for the reasons you stated.

It's simple maths based on the fact a good business is run to make profits yes profits and if ifs no buts, profit is the name of the game. Therefore, why lend on a risky property that has a good chance of being caught up in troubles or being burnt down via accident via work-related stuff, EG leaving the oil on the hob and closing shop.

We will agree to disagree as I'm more than certain I am right

Have a nice day.

user1977

diystarter7 said:

user1977 said:

diystarter7 said:

user1977 said:

diystarter7 said:

Exodi said:

diystarter7 said:

Have you considered riots and the looting and burning of shops? If you have, then good but
if not, it's something I'd consider.

A friend of mine lived in Greenwich, a flat above a shop they were on the 5th floor
and this bloke got shot by the police (this is years ago) shops were looted but thankfully not
firebombed but were in other areas. Looters were trying to break into the building that had double glass doors but residents stood their ground.

Personally, I'd avoid a flat over a shop

Well that escalated quickly.

OP is above a cafe, so unless the looters have a penchant for tea bags, I 

Why on earth do you think most lenders avoid lending out on property above shops, lol.

Because of nothing to do with the risk of them being fire-bombed in a riot. Even in inner city London, what proportion of commercial premises do you think that's ever happened to?

The reason they don't lend is because of more mundane disturbance and loss of amenity caused by noise, smells, etc, and the tendency of commercial occupiers not to want to contribute towards common charges.

Where is the evidence? I can supply the evidence of shops being looted/smashed/robbed/fire-bombed etc etc., therefore, resulting in a much less saleable and in turn a bigger risk. A risk many established lenders will not entertain. 

Quiet frankly the reason you give does not add up as lenders are there to make money so why write of millions of possible loans amounting to tens of billions, lol.

It's the same rationale as for other types of properties which don't meet lenders' lending criteria. They want properties which are of a predictable value and will be easily marketable if they have to sell. The reasons buyers don't like flats above shops are similar to the reasons they don't want to live across the road from a pub. It's nothing to do with them fearing a riot in their street.

Incredible. If you really believe that then I'm sorry, but I give up.
Quite frankly what you are saying is that shops/commercial places etc are not at a greater risk than houses in non-cemmercial areas, pull the other one

No right-minded lender would forgo the opportunities
 to make masses of profits for not lending money for the reasons you stated.

It's simple maths based on the fact a good business is run to make profits yes profits and if ifs no buts, profit is the name of the game. Therefore, why lend on a risky property that has a good chance of being caught up in troubles or being burnt down via accident via work-related stuff, EG leaving the oil on the hob and closing shop.

The risks to lenders are rather more than merely the secured property catching fire (in fact that's arguably less of a risk as it's almost universally insured against). The main risk to them is a property which they can't sell reasonably quickly and for a price resembling its original valuation.

If you want evidence, have a look at all the previous threads here about neighbouring commercial properties - what people are concerned about are cooking smells, deliveries at all hours, punters hanging around outside, amplified music, short-term tenants having the liabilities (but no real interest) in relation to communal charges for the building, the risk of the use changing from a fairly benign shop to a more antisocial use. Those are the things which put off buyers.