Second home for about 10 years

Emily_Joy

I got a new job (started last summer) about 100 miles from home. We cannot relocate completely due to my partner's job. Renting long term is ruled out for a number of reasons I explained in my earlier thread. I would like therefore to buy a property where I will be staying when I need to be there. Work pattern is very flexible, I do not need to be in every day of the week at all. I can see myself staying here for about 10 years or more. I am looking for something with easy and  low maintenance and that will be easy to sell/to rent if need be.

Taking this into account what would be the best type of property to consider?  Leasehold apartments seem to involve ground rent/management fees/estate fees which can be a pain to remortgage/to sell. Am I down to freehold maisonettes and small 2-bedroom houses? Is share of freehold worth considering? 

Ditzy_Mitzy

What's wrong with the other thread?  It's often easier to keep everything in the same place.  

Anyway, how often do you need to be present at work?  A commute of 100 miles each way isn't pleasant, but doing it once or twice a week is going to be preferable to the rigmarole of buying a second house or flat.  £250,000 odd buys a lot of rail tickets.  If you drive, it might be more sensible to look at a better car rather than another house.  But that, of course, is dependent on how often you need to be wherever it is.  Could you do your days in as a lump?  If, for instance, you work two days a week in the office, you could spend one night a week in an hotel.  

You have also mentioned, previously, the possibility of having a 'lodger' at the second house.  There are pitfalls associated with doing that; is the lodger essential for financial reasons?  

Emily_Joy

I am afraid I fail to see how does this answer any of my questions.

Ditzy_Mitzy

Emily_Joy said:

I am afraid I fail to see how does this answer any of my questions.

And I am afraid I fail to see why this response is in any way more useful than the longer one you've just deleted.  Either way, it's going to be difficult to justify buying a house when your work schedule is so erratic.  You'd be better off looking at a short term let for the periods during which you work four days a week and commuting during those times in which you are only required to be there once a fortnight.  

However, each property type has advantages and pitfalls.  Leaseholds aren't difficult to sell or remortgage per se - it's a very common type of property holding and all conventional leaders will deal with them - but you will need a lease with more than 70 or so years left on it for a loan to be considered.  Lease extension isn't especially onerous if you've got a decent solicitor on side.  It's an irritating expense, but not necessarily prohibitive.  You'll have to pay ground rent and, in most cases, service charges but those vary too much to comment on without knowing what you've got in mind.  Leaseholds can throw up unexpected expenses, if the freeholder decides to replace all the windows say, which don't always benefit the individual leaseholder - something similar happened to me, in that I ended up contributing towards a neighbour's windows but that's how it works.  As a plus, you won't own the fabric of the building so won't have the burden of risk.  Most flats are leasehold, so you'll need to consider them.  You also won't have to keep the building itself secure, which might be advantageous in the circumstances.

Freehold is what it says it is, as you know.  There can be difficulties associated with owning a house, which is more likely to be freehold, that is only occupied sporadically.  These would comprise issues with cold and damp and, of course, security.  Empty houses tend don't go unnoticed and tend to attract attention.  As opposed to leasehold, you'll be responsible for the upkeep of the fabric, which can be expensive.  

Share of freehold?  Combination of the two, but you'll possibly have to do things like become a shareholder in the management committee.  

Ditzy_Mitzy

Oh, and beware the possible sting in the tail as regards council tax.  This will be classed as a 'second home' and the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (going through now, I think) will give certain authorities leave to charge 100% premium on council taxes for second homes.  It only applies to certain boroughs at present, but these measures have a tendency to spread out.  

Emily_Joy

Justification is quite simple: it is a way to protect assets. I believe property is likely to increase in value with time. One of the reasons of getting a lodger was to make sure that the house is not left unoccupied when I am away. Time and money I spend on commute is something I will never get back.

Ditzy_Mitzy

Emily_Joy said:

Justification is quite simple: it is a way to protect assets. I believe property is likely to increase in value with time. One of the reasons of getting a lodger was to make sure that the house is not left unoccupied when I am away. Time and money I spend on commute is something I will never get back.

But then you'll gain the need to expend time and money looking after another property.  It will need to be kept clean; it will need to be kept stocked with food, bedding, cleaning materials, linen and so on; it will place various administrative and clerical burdens on you vis a vis bills and paperwork.  Swings and roundabouts...  

theartfullodger

Emily_Joy said:

I got a new job (started last summer) about 100 miles from home. We cannot relocate completely due to my partner's job. Renting long term is ruled out for a number of reasons I explained in my earlier thread. I would like therefore to buy a property where I will be staying when I need to be there. Work pattern is very flexible, I do not need to be in every day of the week at all. I can see myself staying here for about 10 years or more. ...

Sounds like you existing home would be your prime residence (not your shout btw, but HMRC's and/or Judge's...).  So any "lodgers" probably AST tenants.

What training and education have you done in being a landlord please?? If none/hardly any, big big risk....

Emily_Joy

theartfullodger said:

What training and education have you done in being a landlord please?? If none/hardly any, big big risk....

Does 12 years of being a tenant/lodger count?

Ditzy_Mitzy

theartfullodger said:

Emily_Joy said:

I got a new job (started last summer) about 100 miles from home. We cannot relocate completely due to my partner's job. Renting long term is ruled out for a number of reasons I explained in my earlier thread. I would like therefore to buy a property where I will be staying when I need to be there. Work pattern is very flexible, I do not need to be in every day of the week at all. I can see myself staying here for about 10 years or more. ...

Sounds like you existing home would be your prime residence (not your shout btw, but HMRC's and/or Judge's...).  So any "lodgers" probably AST tenants.

What training and education have you done in being a landlord please?? If none/hardly any, big big risk....

I've already been through that with this particular poster, also being of the opinion that a tenancy is likely to be created, but she has said that a 'lodger' is not essential.  

_Penny_Dreadful

Emily_Joy said:

theartfullodger said:

What training and education have you done in being a landlord please?? If none/hardly any, big big risk....

Does 12 years of being a tenant/lodger count?

Nope, it does not.