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.
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. Thank you for your patience.
📨 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!

What’s wrong with this property

Options
1…1415161820

Comments

  • GDB2222
    GDB2222 Posts: 26,118 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    Herzlos said:
    ReadySteadyPop said:
    No, my advice is that houses are overpriced due to years of cheap debt and the hard to shift belief among the public that just owning or holding a house for a period of time = profit when selling, I am saying be careful what you buy and for how much. and don`t  assume you won`t make a loss when selling, and also be aware how much the debt on the house is costing and could cost in an inflation spike.
    That applies if you're only considering the sale price and ignoring the 'having to live somewhere' aspect of it. 

    Say you buy for a £400k and sell 10 years later for £400k. You've made nothing, right?

    No. Because in those 10 years your mortgage has probably been less than equivalent rent. For those 10 years you've had stability and aren't dependent on a landlord to keep you and to repair things. You've also built up equity. 

    So you could easily sell a property at a "loss" later and still be better off.

    This depends a lot on your mortgage interest rate, compared to the rent. The landlord pays for insurance, ground rent, service charges, and repairs inside the property. 

    You would need to make a detailed estimate for a particular property to determine which is cheaper. In the past, it’s been a no brainer because interest rates were so low, but that’s no longer the case. 

    You obviously build up equity if you pay off part of the mortgage, which you will do if your mortgage payment includes a capital element on top of the interest. But, then, you need to factor this into the equation.

    As you say, though, there are lots of advantages in owning your own property. 
    No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?
  • Herzlos
    Herzlos Posts: 15,762 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    GDB2222 said:
    Herzlos said:
    ReadySteadyPop said:
    No, my advice is that houses are overpriced due to years of cheap debt and the hard to shift belief among the public that just owning or holding a house for a period of time = profit when selling, I am saying be careful what you buy and for how much. and don`t  assume you won`t make a loss when selling, and also be aware how much the debt on the house is costing and could cost in an inflation spike.
    That applies if you're only considering the sale price and ignoring the 'having to live somewhere' aspect of it. 

    Say you buy for a £400k and sell 10 years later for £400k. You've made nothing, right?

    No. Because in those 10 years your mortgage has probably been less than equivalent rent. For those 10 years you've had stability and aren't dependent on a landlord to keep you and to repair things. You've also built up equity. 

    So you could easily sell a property at a "loss" later and still be better off.

    This depends a lot on your mortgage interest rate, compared to the rent. The landlord pays for insurance, ground rent, service charges, and repairs inside the property. 

    No, the tenant pays that via the landlord. The costs are the same but there's another party involved to take a profit. 

    The only exceptions are when the landlord gets a much better mortgage rate than the renter would, or the property is mortgage free. But only if they charge below market rates. 
  • ReadySteadyPop
    ReadySteadyPop Posts: 1,531 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Photogenic First Anniversary Name Dropper
    Tabieth said:
    ReadySteadyPop said:
    Tabieth said:
    ReadySteadyPop said:
    Emmia said:
    Herzlos said:
    ReadySteadyPop said:
    Herzlos said:
    ReadySteadyPop said:
    Herzlos said:
    ReadySteadyPop said:
    How much do you think the 400k flat cost in 2008?

    Somewhere about £250k. Someone will have made a tidy profit on it after holding it for 17 years. 

    Assuming you mean 5 Inkwell close, which was the first link I found in here to a 400k flat, we can see the price history:

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/details/d8ae29fe-8eb9-4059-8799-fe0bd097fa67

    It was first sold for £138k in 1999, then for £405k in 2018. It failed to sell in 2023 and I don't see an asking price for it. 

    Why it sold for £405k in 2018 and is now for sale for £400k in 2025 I don't know. Maybe it was wildly overpriced back then, maybe it's a market correction. 

    What do you reckon it'll be worth in 2050? More or less than £400k?






    Not someone buying now though?

    It depends when they sell it. It could be worth £800k in another 20 years. 

    Maybe the current seller bought at the wrong time, or overpaid for whatever reason. It doesn't matter. How does it compare to what else is available?
    Or like this seller they could be struggling to get back what they borrowed ten years ago?

    After 10 years of payments they'll owe significantly less than the asking price even with a minimal deposit. You can't really infer anything. 
    And, if they'd be otherwise renting they've already least hung onto the money they'd have spent in rent by getting equity in their own place.
    Unless they paid in cash for the house they have to pay the bank to rent the debt they borrowed, if they make a loss when they sell all that is gone. In fact the only way todays prices make sense at today`s interest rates is if you make a big profit when you sell, that is looking more and more unlikely for most buyers now though.
    I find your stance utterly baffling. Of course the buyer has to pay interest on their mortgage. And of course a “bad” purchase or selling very quickly after buying may lose money for the buyer. But a more sensible purchase that isn’t immediately sold is very different. 

    And what’s the alternative? People have to live somewhere. For the vast majority that means paying rent or paying a mortgage. So when considering if buying is a good idea or not, the opportunity cost has to be considered. Rents are significantly higher than mortgages. Landlords need their mortgage covered, their costs covered, empty periods covered, and they want to make a profit. So the person renting is paying all of that every month. A person paying a mortgage is paying the mortgage and of course have maintenance costs. But they are not paying the landlord the empty period or the profit chunks of money. 

    I’ve just bought again after renting for too long. My mortgage is significantly (£400 pcm) cheaper than my rent was (and the landlord put the rent up by £100 pcm after I moved out). I now live in a 2-bed Victorian terrace which I love. It is comfortable, cheaper to run, suits my lifestyle and meets my needs. (Rather than a soulless flat which cost a fortune to heat because it was all electric). I’ve made my house mine (and hopefully added value) by replacing the rotting 1980s kitchen and bathroom. Other comparable houses in the area are being sold for £40k more than I paid (and they don’t have the downstairs loo and utility room that mine has). 

    I’m sure you’ll say I’ve been stupid and I should have carried on renting. But buying has significantly reduced my monthly outgoings, given me an asset, and I have the security of owning my home. I can only lose my home if I stop paying my mortgage. Before I was at the whim of a private landlord. The thought of renting into retirement was scary and I feel so much happier and secure now I own. 

    Buying isn’t for everyone and obviously isn’t risk free. But buying in the U.K. has many, many advantages over renting. As long as one is sensible, does research, and makes good choices, buying is almost always going to be the better option. I gather you have a history on here and I do think you have an agenda. That’s fine and you can obviously post what you like but I do think your advice is quite biased to your agenda and not helpful in many cases. Please consider the impact your words may have. 
    It would just take a "stagflation" event ( CEO of JPM says it is very possible) to flip this on it`s head, rents would be falling and your mortgage debt costs would be rising or staying at a high level. As they say  - you can leave a rental but you can`t leave a mortgage debt. Some of the "average rent" figures quoted by rental agents and some internet posters are to be taken with a large grain of salt, rental demand is falling already and many landlords are feeling the pinch of double council tax, voids, non-payment etc.
    Yes, one can leave a rental. But one has to live somewhere. For the vast majority of us that means paying rent or paying mortgage. It’s not a case of laying a mortgage versus paying nothing. And of course paying rent is “wasted” money in the sense no asset is owned at the end. 

    Anyway, I’m bowing out. I think you’ve been making your property market crash predictions for very many years. If the fact that what you predict keeps not happening hasn’t taught you anything, I doubt that I can. 
    Would interest payments on the debt taken to buy the house (potential to spike over the 30 year terms that are normal now) be "wasted money"? Rent is a "cost" it is a payment for a service, a payment for a service that you want/need and receive can`t be wasted money, a mortgage is a debt and continues even if you don`t live in the house (the house is repo`d for example) two very different things, the "rent is wasted money" meme must be responsible for countless bad debt decisions on houses that won`t hold their "value" ( especially if you include interest)
  • ReadySteadyPop
    ReadySteadyPop Posts: 1,531 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Photogenic First Anniversary Name Dropper
    Herzlos said:
    GDB2222 said:
    Herzlos said:
    ReadySteadyPop said:
    No, my advice is that houses are overpriced due to years of cheap debt and the hard to shift belief among the public that just owning or holding a house for a period of time = profit when selling, I am saying be careful what you buy and for how much. and don`t  assume you won`t make a loss when selling, and also be aware how much the debt on the house is costing and could cost in an inflation spike.
    That applies if you're only considering the sale price and ignoring the 'having to live somewhere' aspect of it. 

    Say you buy for a £400k and sell 10 years later for £400k. You've made nothing, right?

    No. Because in those 10 years your mortgage has probably been less than equivalent rent. For those 10 years you've had stability and aren't dependent on a landlord to keep you and to repair things. You've also built up equity. 

    So you could easily sell a property at a "loss" later and still be better off.

    This depends a lot on your mortgage interest rate, compared to the rent. The landlord pays for insurance, ground rent, service charges, and repairs inside the property. 

    No, the tenant pays that via the landlord. The costs are the same but there's another party involved to take a profit. 

    The only exceptions are when the landlord gets a much better mortgage rate than the renter would, or the property is mortgage free. But only if they charge below market rates. 
    Only if the costs can be covered by wages ( achievable rent is mainly based on wage levels, the landlord`s costs are mainly driven by interest rates (bond market) and service/repair costs or other unexpected charges/costs) If the tenant leaves the landlord is still liable for all the costs, that is the point being made, the tenant just needs to pay the rent, the landlord is liable for their debt and other costs ( double council tax now in some places) even if they don`t have a tenant, making the landlord`s position risky in an inflationary environment where job losses are possible. That is why the OP is being advised that 400k for a very basic flat might not be the best investment they can make.
  • GDB2222
    GDB2222 Posts: 26,118 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    edited 29 June at 3:26PM
    Herzlos said:
    GDB2222 said:
    Herzlos said:
    ReadySteadyPop said:
    No, my advice is that houses are overpriced due to years of cheap debt and the hard to shift belief among the public that just owning or holding a house for a period of time = profit when selling, I am saying be careful what you buy and for how much. and don`t  assume you won`t make a loss when selling, and also be aware how much the debt on the house is costing and could cost in an inflation spike.
    That applies if you're only considering the sale price and ignoring the 'having to live somewhere' aspect of it. 

    Say you buy for a £400k and sell 10 years later for £400k. You've made nothing, right?

    No. Because in those 10 years your mortgage has probably been less than equivalent rent. For those 10 years you've had stability and aren't dependent on a landlord to keep you and to repair things. You've also built up equity. 

    So you could easily sell a property at a "loss" later and still be better off.

    This depends a lot on your mortgage interest rate, compared to the rent. The landlord pays for insurance, ground rent, service charges, and repairs inside the property. 

    No, the tenant pays that via the landlord. The costs are the same but there's another party involved to take a profit. 

    The only exceptions are when the landlord gets a much better mortgage rate than the renter would, or the property is mortgage free. But only if they charge below market rates. 
    You're in some danger of misleading the OP (if he's still reading this thread). Of course, landlords are in the business to make money in the long run, and in the past it's been extremely profitable.

    But, you are saying that it's  cheaper to rent (in terms of monthly outgoings), which is not necessarily true at the moment. That is one reason quite a lot of landlords are selling up. You really need to do the sums quite carefully, to see whether renting or buying is cheaper for a particular property.  

    At the moment, the cheapest mortgage rates are 4.25%, which translates to interest payments of £17,000 pa on a £400k property (like the OP is looking at). Then, there's insurance, ground rent, service charges, and repairs inside the property, which could easily be another £3-5000. So, if the rent is less than £1800 a month, it's actually cheaper to rent.

    For the sort of properties the OP is looking at, the rents in the area are generally well below £1800 a month.
    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/find.html?searchLocation=N12&useLocationIdentifier=true&locationIdentifier=OUTCODE^1669&rent=To+rent&radius=0.0&minBedrooms=1&maxBedrooms=1&propertyTypes=flat&_includeLetAgreed=on&includeLetAgreed=true&dontShow=houseShare,retirement,student&sortType=6&channel=RENT&transactionType=LETTING&displayLocationIdentifier=N12

    There are good reasons to buy rather than rent, but at the moment the buying option may be a little more expensive.
    No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?
  • ReadySteadyPop
    ReadySteadyPop Posts: 1,531 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Photogenic First Anniversary Name Dropper
    Tabieth said:
    ReadySteadyPop said:
    Tabieth said:
    ReadySteadyPop said:
    Tabieth said:
    ReadySteadyPop said:
    Emmia said:
    Herzlos said:
    ReadySteadyPop said:
    Herzlos said:
    ReadySteadyPop said:
    Herzlos said:
    ReadySteadyPop said:
    How much do you think the 400k flat cost in 2008?

    Somewhere about £250k. Someone will have made a tidy profit on it after holding it for 17 years. 

    Assuming you mean 5 Inkwell close, which was the first link I found in here to a 400k flat, we can see the price history:

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/details/d8ae29fe-8eb9-4059-8799-fe0bd097fa67

    It was first sold for £138k in 1999, then for £405k in 2018. It failed to sell in 2023 and I don't see an asking price for it. 

    Why it sold for £405k in 2018 and is now for sale for £400k in 2025 I don't know. Maybe it was wildly overpriced back then, maybe it's a market correction. 

    What do you reckon it'll be worth in 2050? More or less than £400k?






    Not someone buying now though?

    It depends when they sell it. It could be worth £800k in another 20 years. 

    Maybe the current seller bought at the wrong time, or overpaid for whatever reason. It doesn't matter. How does it compare to what else is available?
    Or like this seller they could be struggling to get back what they borrowed ten years ago?

    After 10 years of payments they'll owe significantly less than the asking price even with a minimal deposit. You can't really infer anything. 
    And, if they'd be otherwise renting they've already least hung onto the money they'd have spent in rent by getting equity in their own place.
    Unless they paid in cash for the house they have to pay the bank to rent the debt they borrowed, if they make a loss when they sell all that is gone. In fact the only way todays prices make sense at today`s interest rates is if you make a big profit when you sell, that is looking more and more unlikely for most buyers now though.
    I find your stance utterly baffling. Of course the buyer has to pay interest on their mortgage. And of course a “bad” purchase or selling very quickly after buying may lose money for the buyer. But a more sensible purchase that isn’t immediately sold is very different. 

    And what’s the alternative? People have to live somewhere. For the vast majority that means paying rent or paying a mortgage. So when considering if buying is a good idea or not, the opportunity cost has to be considered. Rents are significantly higher than mortgages. Landlords need their mortgage covered, their costs covered, empty periods covered, and they want to make a profit. So the person renting is paying all of that every month. A person paying a mortgage is paying the mortgage and of course have maintenance costs. But they are not paying the landlord the empty period or the profit chunks of money. 

    I’ve just bought again after renting for too long. My mortgage is significantly (£400 pcm) cheaper than my rent was (and the landlord put the rent up by £100 pcm after I moved out). I now live in a 2-bed Victorian terrace which I love. It is comfortable, cheaper to run, suits my lifestyle and meets my needs. (Rather than a soulless flat which cost a fortune to heat because it was all electric). I’ve made my house mine (and hopefully added value) by replacing the rotting 1980s kitchen and bathroom. Other comparable houses in the area are being sold for £40k more than I paid (and they don’t have the downstairs loo and utility room that mine has). 

    I’m sure you’ll say I’ve been stupid and I should have carried on renting. But buying has significantly reduced my monthly outgoings, given me an asset, and I have the security of owning my home. I can only lose my home if I stop paying my mortgage. Before I was at the whim of a private landlord. The thought of renting into retirement was scary and I feel so much happier and secure now I own. 

    Buying isn’t for everyone and obviously isn’t risk free. But buying in the U.K. has many, many advantages over renting. As long as one is sensible, does research, and makes good choices, buying is almost always going to be the better option. I gather you have a history on here and I do think you have an agenda. That’s fine and you can obviously post what you like but I do think your advice is quite biased to your agenda and not helpful in many cases. Please consider the impact your words may have. 
    It would just take a "stagflation" event ( CEO of JPM says it is very possible) to flip this on it`s head, rents would be falling and your mortgage debt costs would be rising or staying at a high level. As they say  - you can leave a rental but you can`t leave a mortgage debt. Some of the "average rent" figures quoted by rental agents and some internet posters are to be taken with a large grain of salt, rental demand is falling already and many landlords are feeling the pinch of double council tax, voids, non-payment etc.
    Yes, one can leave a rental. But one has to live somewhere. For the vast majority of us that means paying rent or paying mortgage. It’s not a case of laying a mortgage versus paying nothing. And of course paying rent is “wasted” money in the sense no asset is owned at the end. 

    Anyway, I’m bowing out. I think you’ve been making your property market crash predictions for very many years. If the fact that what you predict keeps not happening hasn’t taught you anything, I doubt that I can. 
    Would interest payments on the debt taken to buy the house (potential to spike over the 30 year terms that are normal now) be "wasted money"? Rent is a "cost" it is a payment for a service, a payment for a service that you want/need and receive can`t be wasted money, a mortgage is a debt and continues even if you don`t live in the house (the house is repo`d for example) two very different things, the "rent is wasted money" meme must be responsible for countless bad debt decisions on houses that won`t hold their "value" ( especially if you include interest)
    I don’t see why it needs to be over complicated. Most people have a choice. Rent for 25 years, at the end of which no asset is owned and so there’s no security. Mortgage for 25 years, at the end of which the property is fully owned. Both options cost money and involve expense. Rents are usually higher than mortgages (they need to cover the landlord costs (including their mortgage) plus profit) and either way the mortgage interest is being paid, either by the rental tenant or the owner paying the mortgage. 

    I realise you need to justify your life choices to yourself. And I realise buying isn’t risk-free (nothing is!) or for everyone. But your buying=bad stance really isn’t helpful or accurate for most people. 
    Did you say you recently took out a mortgage? As posted before I never said buying = Bad I said Overpaying in a volatile interest rate environment could  = Bad, (especially on a basic flat likely to have difficulty at re-sale, as the 400k one discovered when they cut the asking price by 75k)
  • ReadySteadyPop
    ReadySteadyPop Posts: 1,531 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Photogenic First Anniversary Name Dropper
    GDB2222 said:
    Herzlos said:
    GDB2222 said:
    Herzlos said:
    ReadySteadyPop said:
    No, my advice is that houses are overpriced due to years of cheap debt and the hard to shift belief among the public that just owning or holding a house for a period of time = profit when selling, I am saying be careful what you buy and for how much. and don`t  assume you won`t make a loss when selling, and also be aware how much the debt on the house is costing and could cost in an inflation spike.
    That applies if you're only considering the sale price and ignoring the 'having to live somewhere' aspect of it. 

    Say you buy for a £400k and sell 10 years later for £400k. You've made nothing, right?

    No. Because in those 10 years your mortgage has probably been less than equivalent rent. For those 10 years you've had stability and aren't dependent on a landlord to keep you and to repair things. You've also built up equity. 

    So you could easily sell a property at a "loss" later and still be better off.

    This depends a lot on your mortgage interest rate, compared to the rent. The landlord pays for insurance, ground rent, service charges, and repairs inside the property. 

    No, the tenant pays that via the landlord. The costs are the same but there's another party involved to take a profit. 

    The only exceptions are when the landlord gets a much better mortgage rate than the renter would, or the property is mortgage free. But only if they charge below market rates. 
    You're in some danger of misleading the OP (if he's still reading this thread). Of course, landlords are in the business to make money in the long run, and in the past it's been extremely profitable.

    But, you are saying that it's  cheaper to rent (in terms of monthly outgoings), which is not necessarily true at the moment. That is one reason quite a lot of landlords are selling up. You really need to do the sums quite carefully, to see whether renting or buying is cheaper for a particular property.  

    At the moment, the cheapest mortgage rates are 4.25%, which translates to interest payments of £17,000 pa on a £400k property (like the OP is looking at). Then, there's insurance, ground rent, service charges, and repairs inside the property, which could easily be another £3-5000. So, if the rent is less than £1800 a month, it's actually cheaper to rent.

    For the sort of properties the OP is looking at, the rents in the area are generally well below £1800 a month.
    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/find.html?searchLocation=N12&useLocationIdentifier=true&locationIdentifier=OUTCODE^1669&rent=To+rent&radius=0.0&minBedrooms=1&maxBedrooms=1&propertyTypes=flat&_includeLetAgreed=on&includeLetAgreed=true&dontShow=houseShare,retirement,student&sortType=6&channel=RENT&transactionType=LETTING&displayLocationIdentifier=N12

    There are good reasons to buy rather than rent, but at the moment the buying option may be a little more expensive.




    Makes sense, many rent stats are just asking rents anyway I think, agents who want landlords on their books are not going to say that achievable rents are dropping are they?
  • Herzlos
    Herzlos Posts: 15,762 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    ReadySteadyPop said:
    Would interest payments on the debt taken to buy the house (potential to spike over the 30 year terms that are normal now) be "wasted money"? Rent is a "cost" it is a payment for a service, a payment for a service that you want/need and receive can`t be wasted money, a mortgage is a debt and continues even if you don`t live in the house (the house is repo`d for example) two very different things, the "rent is wasted money" meme must be responsible for countless bad debt decisions on houses that won`t hold their "value" ( especially if you include interest)

    Why would rent be a cost for a payment for a service but interest isn't? It's the cost for payment for the loan? At the end of the day the only thing to factor in is money out and money back in. With rent its 100% out, with a mortgage you'll get some money back at the end (assuming capital repayment). 

    Unless the house is repo'd very early on or you're over leveraged, you're still likely to get some money back on it. For example, I owe about £150k on a £250k house. Even it got repo'd and they sold it for way under market, I'd still not owe anything. But in reality it's not going to get repo'd and if I fell behind I could sell for market rate and use the equity to buy something smaller.
  • Herzlos
    Herzlos Posts: 15,762 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    GDB2222 said:
    Herzlos said:

    No, the tenant pays that via the landlord. The costs are the same but there's another party involved to take a profit. 

    The only exceptions are when the landlord gets a much better mortgage rate than the renter would, or the property is mortgage free. But only if they charge below market rates. 
    You're in some danger of misleading the OP (if he's still reading this thread). Of course, landlords are in the business to make money in the long run, and in the past it's been extremely profitable.

    But, you are saying that it's  cheaper to rent (in terms of monthly outgoings), which is not necessarily true at the moment. That is one reason quite a lot of landlords are selling up. You really need to do the sums quite carefully, to see whether renting or buying is cheaper for a particular property.  
    I'm not saying it's cheaper to rent at all. Even ignoring equity it usually seems to be cheaper to buy. At least anecdotally here a 2-bed flat costs more to rent than the mortgage on a 4-bed house. 

    My point was that the landlord is going to factor in the costs of maintaining the property and some profit, so it's rare that it'd cost less that buying. No landlord is deliberately going to lose money on a rental. 

    Rentals definitely provide more flexibility in terms of moving etc, but over the mid-long term buying is almost certainly cheaper because at some point it'll be paid off and you're only on the hook for maintenance. 

★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.7K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 243.7K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.8K Life & Family
  • 256.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.
Update Your Picture