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!
Opinion: Fleecehold as a high risk investment?
Comments
-
ReadySteadyPop said:pieroabcd said:ReadySteadyPop said:pieroabcd said:PRLB said:including the fact that a home is not just an investment but also a place to live
I consider my house as the moneybox that I live in.
For me I preferred to buy a 95 years old freehold house (without fees) instead of a new build for a very simple reason: I want to have exclusive control on the house, not to be at the mercy of someone else's decisions as if I were renting (that is unavoidable when fees apply, even if you "take part" to it).
Ease of resellability comes as a very straightforward consequence of this exclusivity.
It's up to you to make the total cost not exceed the market value (for example I decided to repay early as much as I could to minimise the interest).
Think of the alternative: paying someone else's mortgage by paying their rent. Isn't the house still a moneybox compared to a rent that is 100% lost money?
Even if you sell for a loss it's definitely much less than 100%, unlike with a rent.
Yes it costs sacrifices, but in my opinion it's well worth it if it's possible.0 -
pieroabcd said:ReadySteadyPop said:pieroabcd said:ReadySteadyPop said:pieroabcd said:PRLB said:including the fact that a home is not just an investment but also a place to live
I consider my house as the moneybox that I live in.
For me I preferred to buy a 95 years old freehold house (without fees) instead of a new build for a very simple reason: I want to have exclusive control on the house, not to be at the mercy of someone else's decisions as if I were renting (that is unavoidable when fees apply, even if you "take part" to it).
Ease of resellability comes as a very straightforward consequence of this exclusivity.
It's up to you to make the total cost not exceed the market value (for example I decided to repay early as much as I could to minimise the interest).
Think of the alternative: paying someone else's mortgage by paying their rent. Isn't the house still a moneybox compared to a rent that is 100% lost money?
Even if you sell for a loss it's definitely much less than 100%, unlike with a rent.
Yes it costs sacrifices, but in my opinion it's well worth it if it's possible.0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards