[Closed] Housing bubble.

I would imagine you are correct in regards to investment firms picking up the glut of cheap houses -[b] however I only need the one[/b].

So does everyone else in London with good skills & making a decent salary but stuck renting, that's the problem... whereas the reality is that even in the current climate there are plenty of investors looking at rent prices & thinking there's still more money to be squeezed out of them yet...

I do feel sorry for people in your situation - the easy answer is gtf out of London, I've said it & so have plenty of others but I also understand it's much easier said than done just to up sticks & move your entire life across the country... although that watermill place a couple of pages back did look tempting!

"Sorry but mobile phones, a car, a laptop, a fast internet connection etc are basic essentials now if you want to stand any chance of holding down a decent job"

if your self employed.

So take the 2 bed flat mentioned on the last page for £220k. Still not chump change, but the mortgage will be about the same or less than the Studio flat rent.

[img] [/img]

Shall IGMC now?

 

I do feel sorry for people in your situation - the easy answer is gtf out of London, I've said it & so have plenty of others but I also understand it's much easier said than done just to up sticks & move your entire life across the country... although that watermill place a couple of pages back did look tempting!

I appreciate that but I'm not asking for people to feel sorry for me - I'm in a very good position, I work in a high growth profession and it puts me in better stead than most.

What I'm asking for is some genuine action in regards to this - we need FAR FAR FAR more houses being built!!

What is essentially being asked is anyone under the age of 30 without wealthy parents need to GTFO of London/SE as soon as they can - we're talking hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions), not just me.

cornholio98 - Member

nonsense

Are you a 18-21 year old currently seeking employment?

What is essentially being asked is anyone under the age of 30 without wealthy parents need to GTFO of London/SE as soon as they can - we're talking hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions), not just me.

I'm under 30.
My parents whilst not on the breadline, their contribution to the house buying process was enough to hire the man with a van (and I didn't ask for it or absolutely need it, but it did make the long wait to payday a bit more comfortable than it would have been).
I've made it work.

I did spend a lot of time looking at that watermill though! so I won't deny the temptation to leave wasn't strong!

But what you're saying boils down to the fact I've spent the last 10years doing what it sounds like you're about to have to do, and you want a shortcut that involves me going bankrupt so you can have my house!

hexhamstu - Member

cornholio98 - Member

nonsense

Are you a 18-21 year old currently seeking employment?

Not any more? What is your point?

I'm under 30. I've made it work.

That is fantastic and encouraging to hear. But you are the exception and most definitely not the rule.

The issue stands with the difficulty achieving it.

There are no "starter" houses here. There are houses, and that is the issue.

But what you're saying boils down to the fact I've spent the last 10years doing what it sounds like you're about to have to do, and you want a shortcut that involves me going bankrupt so you can have my house!

I can understand how what I said would be construed that way - what I was implying that perhaps for my personal situation a crash wouldn't be the end of the world. I don't want your house.

That is fantastic and encouraging to hear. But you are the exception and most definitely not the rule.

Just googled it, the average age for a fist time buyer is the SE is 29, London it's 32. So actually I'm Mr 50%, neither a majority or a minority, next step 2.4 kids.

What I'm asking for is some genuine action in regards to this - we need FAR FAR FAR more houses being built!!

What is essentially being asked is anyone under the age of 30 without wealthy parents need to GTFO of London/SE as soon as they can - we're talking hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions), not just me.

Just googled it, the average age for a fist time buyer is the SE is 29, London it's 32.

Where was your source and how recent was it? I will point you to [url= http://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1076926/2015_02_26_Affordability_for_first_time_buyers_-_FINAL.pdf ]this[/url].

It's from Shelter and created in March 2015. It pretty much disagrees with everything you've said and proves how distorted the house prices have become in regards to age. In fact I would encourage anyone that disagrees it's hard for a younger person to get on the housing ladder to read it - it's quite eye opening.

The trouble is that there isn't the space to build that many houses in the SE unless you build on green belt. The houses at Wisley airport that you mentioned will never be built with this current government. What we need is decentralisation of our economy but that is extremely difficult and can take generations. Go to other parts of the UK and places like Newcastle you see lots of house building, we need the economy to follow.

So it is a government policy issue that needs to be resolved and nothing to do with my or my generations unwillingless to work for it which is what is being implied by most in this thread..

And a quote from the article referenced above:

The average number of first time buyers each year since 2007 is around half of the average level between 1980 and 2003. According to the Council of Mortgage Lenders, assistance for first time buyers (such as the so-called “bank of mum and dad”) is now far more common, increasing from 31% in June quarter 2005 to 66% in June quarter 2011. The increase in assistance for first time buyers under 30 was even stronger, with 77% buying a home with some form of assistance in 2011.
This significant decline in first time buyer activity has flowed through to lower rates of home ownership for younger age groups, which has declined since the early 1990s. The decline has been particularly acute for 25-34 year olds. The proportion of 25-34 year olds owning their own home was 67% in 1991, but has declined to 36% in 2013-14. The decline was even stronger for those aged 16-24, amongst whom the number of homeowners has declined dramatically from
36% in 1991 to 9% in 2013-14.

[quote="thisisnotaspoon"]I'm under 30.
😀 At 30 i was effectively homeless. Or couchsurfing.

[quote=enbern ]I do feel sorry for people in your situation - the easy answer is gtf out of London, I've said it & so have plenty of others but I also understand it's much easier said than done just to up sticks & move your entire life across the country... although that watermill place a couple of pages back did look tempting!
I appreciate that but I'm not asking for people to feel sorry for me - I'm in a very good position, I work in a high growth profession and it puts me in better stead than most.
What I'm asking for is some genuine action in regards to this - we need FAR FAR FAR more houses being built!!
What is essentially being asked is anyone under the age of 30 without wealthy parents need to GTFO of London/SE as soon as they can - we're talking hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions), not just me.
And what London/SE does NOT needed is a lot more people living there, sucking investment out of the rest of the UK

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/07/london-gets-24-times-as-much-infrastructure-north-east-england

Other projects in the capital including tube improvements mean that £5,426 will have been spent on each resident of London compared to £223 on those in the north-east region.

i raise you march and england centric and give you august and uk wide....

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-3184763/Young-homebuyers-st.html

i decided i didnt want to rent for the rest of my life and went and worked in africa for 2 years age 23 - thats how i made it work- got to see some of africa, got to see some sights i wish i hadnt and i got to see some sights ill never forget.

enbern

I don't think that it is unwillingness to work but inflexibility. I can fully understand that you may not want to move away from you friends and family in order to find somewhere to live. In a perfect world you would not have to.
Trouble is people have to move for work or to be closer to better schools etc. At this time it appears that the location you are in ticks every box except affordability for purchase so compromise will be needed.
The South East is a mad place to try to start out...

And what London/SE does NOT needed is a lot more people living there, sucking investment out of the rest of the UK

Politicians spend more money in London, people move there. People move there, so politicians spend more money there. Politicians spend more money in London, people move there. People move there so politicians spend more money there.

And so it continues for eternity.

Once again this is a policy fault of the government and does not implicate fault on myself or my generation AT ALL.

The South East is a mad place to try to start out...

You're telling me!! Unfortunately (or fortunately? I don't know..) for me it's the hand that was dealt.

I have aging parents who were lucky (wise?) enough to buy a property down here when it was cheap and thus they are staying put. I won't be leaving my family and friends and if it means I have to find £500k for a house then so be it.

It doesn't have to be that way though. They could just build more starter houses..

In the place that I was born and grew up, where every single person I know on this planet lives and where my job is based.
Surrey.

Life sucks, I too was born there....as an NHS employee I can't afford anything more than a shoe box there now....but to be honest why would I want to live there!?

Surrey is busy, overcrowded, dirty, expensive etc....broaden your horizons and you'll realise that there are many many places around the country better than bloody Surrey!
If you were to move somewhere else you'd find that you see as much of your friends and family as you did before, we certainly have done, people love coming to stay and everyone has cars so getting around is a doddle....the UK is tiny, it's not like having to trek across Australia to see friends!

Part of growing up is branching out in different directions, I have friends all over the country and now abroad too.....life would be very boring if we'd all just stayed in Surrey....now I can holiday in Oz with friends on the cheap, friends can come to Wales and stay with me and we can go hiking and cycling together....life's good, I couldn't imagine anything more boring than spending my adult life where I grew up.

Surrey is busy, overcrowded, dirty, expensive etc....broaden your horizons and you'll realise that there are many many places around the country better than bloody Surrey!

I don't disagree with you but home is where the heart is etc etc

I'm not totally against moving elsewhere but it isn't a solution to the issue.

The issue is there isn't enough being done to make sure there are a good and steady influx of new homes for first time buyers in London and South East.

It has nothing to do with my ambitions to stay here or my lack of willingless to move or my inflexibility to find work elsewhere.

The problem is purely there isn't enough houses and a massive inaction on behalf of the government to do anything at all about it.

"a massive inaction on behalf of the government to do anything at all about it."

in response too -

"Politicians spend more money in London, people move there. People move there, so politicians spend more money there. Politicians spend more money in London, people move there. People move there so politicians spend more money there."

perhaps..... just thinking outloud.

[quote=enbern] The problem is purely there [s]isn't enough houses[/s] are too many people and a massive inaction on behalf of the government to do anything at all about it.Betterer?

Where was your source and how recent was it? I will point you to this.

Google something along the lines of "average age first time buyer in surrey", googling it again doesn't throw up the same local paper article, but plenty of national press articles from last year say it's 29 nationally 32 in London so it's probably taken from the same report. That shelter report doesn't actually give an age figure just proportions of people in various age brackets owning their own home.

Moving from the place you know isn't that scary. We did it eight years ago, and went from a too small house in a rough estate of Nottingham to a just about adequate modest house with a mountain behind it and a loch in front of it. We didn't know anyone at all when we moved, and now we know more people than I can count. OK, both our jobs are ones that can be anywhere, which isn't the case for all (although I'm not sure why lots more can't be these days), so I appreciate it's not as easy for everyone. But there's life outside of Surrey, sometimes a better one.

perhaps..... just thinking outloud.

@trail_rat In response to general infrastructure investment and not directly housing.

Betterer?

@scotroutes You aren't necessarily wrong but again it is a policy issue and not a "young generation slacking" issue.

That shelter report doesn't actually give an age figure just proportions of people in various age brackets owning their own home.

@thisisnotaspoon Correct however there is a correlation that agrees with my point that it is prohibitively difficult for our age group to own a home.

Surrey is busy, overcrowded, dirty, expensive etc....broaden your horizons and you'll realise that there are many many places around the country better than bloody Surrey!

[img] [/img]

... and did I mention that there's a neat little duplex not far from here going at a snip?

 

enbern - how about looking south towards Crawley, a lot cheaper down there.

[quote=enbern ]@scotroutes You aren't necessarily wrong but again it is a policy issue and not a "young generation slacking" issue.At no point have I said it is. I'm merely trying to point out that building more homes is repeating the past/current mistakes - and you can see how that is working out.

how about looking south towards Crawley, a lot cheaper down there.

I think this is where I will inevitably end up. Somewhere "around" Surrey that is still close enough to London to commute.

At no point have I said it is. I'm merely trying to point out that building more homes is repeating the past/current mistakes - and you can see how that is working out.

No you are right apologies, you haven't actually said that but it's been implied quite a few times throughout the thread by others.

I can't understand how building more homes would do anything but good in relation to the house prices in London/SE though - the lack of housing is the reason it's become so expensive.

@trail_rat In response to general infrastructure investment and not directly housing.

i know what you meant , i was making a point that the two might be related.

yes they want the infrastructure in london they want people to be able to move about london and to get to london BUT they dont want you actually living in london because its already over crowded.

although its a crap policy as all it does is prices out your service workers.

[quote=enbern ]I can't understand how building more homes would do anything but good in relation to the house prices in London/SE though - the lack of housing the reason it's become so expensive.See that supply/demand equation?

yes they want the infrastructure in london they want people to be able to move about london and to get to london BUT they dont want you actually living in london.

And this relates back to the original quote - if they were to invest more in the North then it would become far more attractive and perhaps start bridging the divide.

Doesn't solve my issue of lack of southern housing though unfortunately.

See that supply/demand equation?

I understand supply and demand. In this case there is a lack of supply and an abundance of demand - hence the expensive prices. Build more houses and maybe it will even out and I won't be in this thread complaining about ridiculous house prices.

[quote=enbern ]if they were to invest more in the North then it would become far more attractive and perhaps start bridging the divide.
Doesn't solve my issue of lack of southern housing though unfortunately.
You really can't see that by investing in the other regions people would be more likely to move and so there would be a greater supply of houses in the SE?

You really can't see that by investing in the other regions people would be more likely to move and so there would be a greater supply of houses in the SE?

I need a house now - not in 30 years.

Great thread and very interesting read, thanks.

I've considered contributing many points on this debated issue, the illusion, BTL, lenders (I.e. the city) being the only winners, ever - this was why the illusion was created in the first place. And many others.

However, if I were to choose one contribution to offer from the many, to this thread...

enbern: You got to get out more dude. The world is a big place and the universe even bigger. Do your soul a favour 8)

You got to get out more dude. The world is a big place and the universe even bigger. Do your soul a favour

I appreciate the advice. In every other aspect of my life I have immense satisfaction.

I've got a lovely woman, a great family, the best hobby in the world in bikes and a good bunch of people to have debates with on this forum.

Unfortunately I don't have a house and this thread has seen my rage 🙂

For me, far more should be done to move industry, business parks and by default people out of the South East.

As others have said, there's loads of cheap unoccupied houses around the country....but sadly no jobs for people to work if they buy one of those.

The government should be offering tax breaks to firms that are willing to setup outside of the South East, the government could contribute to relocation costs for those prepared to move which would surely be cheaper than trying to help people buy in the South East!?

We have a lovely country in general but a bizarre obsession with the South East, that photo above if the Surrey Hills is wonderful and I've enjoyed riding that area, sadly because it's the only nice hilly bit of countryside down south it gets busy, trails get pulled down and you can ride from one side to the other in less that a day.....i can ride the same stuff in Wales, but not see another soul, build what I want and know it'll still be there in a month and spend days eexploring areas that dwarf the Surrey Hills....seriously folks, if the government won't help then do what you can to relocate somewhere better and more affordable....i don't earn what I was earning a year ago but I don't need to, there's no bars, cinemas, restaurants etc on my doorstep like there was in the South, it's a simpler way of living and far less stressful.

I need a house now - not in 30 years.

Trouble is this is a problem that has taken a couple of generations to create to its current stage, and it is a problem that will take a couple of generations to fix, from when action is actually taken.

There are two main reasons why politicians aren't really motivated to take action, primarily because their political careers will be well over by the time benefits of action are reaped, and secondly it is the banking industry and financiers who benefit most from inflated housing prices.

yes they want the infrastructure in london they want people to be able to move about london and to get to london BUT they dont want you actually living in london because its already over crowded.

As far as I can tell, the only solution is technological.

People need to stop fannying about and commit to remote working, where it's possible (and it is, for a large number of us). And 'oh it's not the same blabla' that's not an excuse. Make it work. Get used to it.

Physical commuting causes no end of massive problems with expensive solutions. There's a massive environmental cost of all that transport - the fuel and the making of the extra cars - and then there's the cost of all those roads.

As a side effect, we'd be able to live wherever we felt like. We could move to the countryside without crowding around the good transport links. That would take a massive amount of money out of London and spread it into rural communities -and it'd save a huge amount of money in the process. House prices would plummet in London, but the rest of the country could easily accommodate the extras.

Downside is slashed fuel duty income.

Build more houses - just not on the Green Belt please 🙂

Airport policies (well taxes) have pushed people SE.

When they changed the passenger tax to per aircraft rather than per person it made it uneconomical to fly a half empty plane to a regional airport. This reduced the amount of flights to and from smaller airports and pushed them SE. This makes business travel easier from the SE so more attractive to certain businesses.
Changing planes when going on holiday is a PITA so you also add some desirability to the region because of that.

Poor planning in the late 90's has given us the situation we have now. Good planning might help us in another 15-20 years...

Build more houses - just not on the Green Belt please

Why not on the green belt? A lot of it is not very special, not very pretty, and not much use for anything else than building. It's only there to stop towns merging.
A relic from the 60s that's past it's sell by date.

Why not on the green belt? A lot of it is not very special, not very pretty, and not much use for anything else than building...

There is a big "protect the greenbelt" sentiment around here, it does feel like it translates quite well into "protect my assets" though.

I grew up in the London end of Surrey (Surbiton, FWIW) and moved out to Berkshire in 2004 because for the price of a 1-bed flat in Surbiton we could have a 3-bed house in Berkshire. So I don't have a [i]huge[/i] amount of sympathy for anyone who stamps their feet about how unfair it is they can't afford to live where they grew up.

There was a young guy on another forum I used to visit, lived in Milton Keynes I think, with his folks. He maintained he'd only ever consider moving out if he could buy somewhere in a specific (expensive, unrealistic) part of London. In the meantime he spent a lot of his disposable income running a Ferrari 355 and moaning that he couldn't afford to buy a house 🙄

"I think, with his folks. He maintained he'd only ever consider moving out if he could buy somewhere in a specific (expensive, unrealistic) part of London. In the meantime he spent a lot of his disposable income running a Ferrari 355 "

I wouldn't like to have tested it but I'm sure my parents would have beat the day lights out of me if i bought a Ferrari and tried to continue living at home....

So I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for anyone who stamps their feet about how unfair it is they can't afford to live where they grew up.

No sympathy required. You made the decision to move to Berkshire and that is a decision only you could have made.

Had there been enough houses and they were reasonably priced I'm sure you would have stayed though, and that is the point I want to make.

We can make compromises all day long and eventually I imagine I'd end up in the middle of nowhere in a house that cost me £25k. It might not have a roof but hey, I own a house right?

Or we could fix the problem at the source and everyone is happy.

FYI I don't drive a Ferrari 355 (I wish I did).

I've been reading this thread with interest, but it seems to be going in circles now. Enbern - have you written to your MP and Brandon Lewis (housing minister)? Might be a positive step if not.

@thisisnotaspoon Correct however there is a correlation that agrees with my point that it is prohibitively difficult for our age group to own a home.

How old are you?

As I said, the average age is now 29-32. and I suspect the distribution is distorted (and depends on what average you pick), so that those waiting longer than average all come in a rush after 30 as it's taken everyone 8-10 years of saving to get there and suddenly they've got the deposit, wheres people in their 20's in the north are probably buying before they're 25.

No ones got it easy, a lot of those people in our parents generation had to deal with 15% interest rates, all very well saying house prices have gone up faster than earnings, but with rates low [url= http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/Documents/articles/2015/6jul.pdf ](and they've been in the <4% range for almost 12 years) [/url] the affordability of housing probably isn't all that bad (apart form those lucky 40 somethings who got on the ladder with low prices after the 90's crash and low interest rates).

This is another issue entirely finbar - there is a big inaction amongst my peers to remedy the situation and unfortunately the more vocal crowd are the ones against house building (for whatever reasons those may be) in this area.

I agree though - it is going around in circles and I'm saying the same things each time. Enough from me.

Embrace the North! 7.12 from Doncaster drops you at King's Cross at 8.50, houses in Doncaster start at £40k ish for a poor terrace and £250k will get you into all sorts of lovely places. Sorry, enbern, couldn't get one for £25k but what's £5k between members of the Audi Owner's Club.
[url= http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-39500364.html ]£30k house on Rightmove[/url], only ten minute's walk to the station and you might see David Jason filming Open all Hours at the end of your street.

Edit: A grand a month for your season ticket though.

There is a big "protect the greenbelt" sentiment around here

Yeah - lots of opposition to building in some of the villages too - in Effingham there's a plan to build a new school on scrub land and use the old site for housing but not wanted by locals. Ugly land can go I suppose but the developers want the fields by the nice villages.

@midlifecrashes Consider me very impressed! That commute time is only about 10 minutes more than it takes me now! And the house has a roof!!!

Forget everything I've said - I'm going to Doncaster!!!

A grand a month for your season ticket though.

That's alright - my rent covers that and I get a cheeky payrise!

You really can't see that by investing in the other regions people would be more likely to move and so there would be a greater supply of houses in the SE?

😆

Just to add another bit of evidence to the lunacy. Mate bought a 3 bed semi in central dorking requiring serious work for £410k, have been pricing up extensions etc... but not proceeded, luckily as they found out they are expecting twins and now have to move to a cheaper area to accommodate a bigger family. Re-valued a couple of weeks ago at £525k. All he has done is paint half of the rooms and sand the floor.....

its the same for everyone, not just ftbs. Im nearly 40, just recently moved from west country to surrey, cos wife got new job, got a half size house, and gone from 0 mortgage to 3x bigger mortgage than I ever had before, having been on the "ladder" since 2000....but we have chosen to live here and understand the costs....

So what do you know that they don't?

That I paid a totally different price fit my house than the land registry and zoopla think, and that my house is a totally different size to the neighbours house, which sold for less, but made zoopla think prices were rocketing up...

That I paid a totally different price fit my house than the land registry and zoopla think

Sounds like stamp duty fraud...

LMAO, Zoopla reckons my house value has increased by nearly a third over 5 years. Aye, okay then...

It's not just SE that has a problem with house prices - York Harrogate etc is all very expensive compared to incomes not to mention most North Yorkshire market towns

Edit: A grand a month for your season ticket though.

and 3hrs a day on the train...that's 30 days a year before delays.

A lot of people do that sort of thing though. When I was working in London my commute from Surrey included 1 hour train ride inc the usual delays; was OKish when I worked near Waterloo but a struggle when I had to add a tube ride to get to Kings Cross.

[quote="enbern"]Unfortunately I don't have a house and this thread has seen my rageFunny thing is, since basing myself outside of the UK. I've sort of lost interest in having a house. If i'd come here 10 years sooner (before i joined the world of work) i'd probably still be renting and i'd have no issue with it. Probably a third of my peers are in rented accommodation, and they are mostly of the generation would would have been first time buyers (UK) in the late 80s!

I understand most of Europe is the same.

Less interest in getting on the property ladder and more into having a home.

Less interest in getting on the property ladder and more into having a home.

I'm not all that bothered about owning, I'm more bothered about the cost.

Aside from the whole "wasted money" argument (which I'm not going to get into because I'm not sure I agree or disagree with it), it is much cheaper as a monthly expense to have a mortgage than it is to rent around here, forgetting the price of the houses and the deposit cost.

"I understand most of Europe is the same."

could be to do with alot of europe having different rules on rent increases and turfing tennents out...

long term leases etc...

that was my bigest grumble with renting no control over if you would still be living there next year thus no real incentive to become part of the community.

Aside from the whole "wasted money" argument (which I'm not going to get into because I'm not sure I agree or disagree with it), it is much cheaper as a monthly expense to have a mortgage than it is to rent around here, forgetting the price of the houses and the deposit cost.

I lived in Teesside 2011-2012, the house (nice area of a quiet village, terrace house, garden and garage) was worth about £80k, the rent was £550/month (6.8%).

A flat in Wokingham rent's for about £1000/month and costs about £250k (4.8%).

(and before someone says it, wages in Wokingham are £450/month more than Teesside in pretty much any job above minimum wage)

turfing tennents out.

No arguments with that. Revolting northern muck.

it is much cheaper as a monthly expense to have a mortgage than it is to rent around here, forgetting the price of the houses and the deposit cost.

signed disillusioned of the south east.

The house/mortgage cost pales in insignificance to that of which is decoration/maintenance/upgrades and just general refurb that your landlord used to take care of.

I'm not really looking to jump into the argument again but from some mortgage checks that myself and my partner have done a mortgage would be looking at somewhere in the region of £850-£1000 a month tops and our rent currently sits at around £1500 and I would imagine the house that the mortgage is attached to would be bigger than where we are currently.

I'm sure your house doesn't cost you £500 a month in maintenance and if it does - unlucky mate.

enbern

You work for the NHS, so apply here:

Borders General Hospital.

See those hills behind (Eildons), see Strava for segments 🙂

I don't work for the NHS, my partner does - those hills look lovely and I'll point her that way 😆

Sounds like stamp duty fraud...

Sounds like a housing developer trade in / gifted deposit scheme. 8)

"I'm not really looking to jump into the argument again but from some mortgage checks that myself and my partner have done a mortgage would be looking at somewhere in the region of £850-£1000 a month tops and our rent currently sits at around £1500 and I would imagine the house that the mortgage is attached to would be bigger than where we are currently.

I'm sure your house doesn't cost you £500 a month in maintenance and if it does - unlucky mate."

In which case im back to having no sympathy - just buy a house if it makes so much financial sense ...... yesterday they were all 500k and too small ... today we can get one thats bigger than you currently have and it only costs 850-1k a month.

and yes move near BR - great riding round there - we travel down there often to ride 😀

Nothings changed - still need a huge deposit and enough of a wage to beat the 4:1 lending rule - which I don't meet so I wouldn't be lent enough money to buy one around here anyway.

I'm saying I don't want to be stuck renting forever because it would work out cheaper as a MONTHLY EXPENSE to have a mortgage vs renting.

Regardless I can see myself getting dragged back into an argument here - let's agree to disagree.

We can both agree that those hills look awesome and I bet none of us here would mind living near there.

I'm sure your house doesn't cost you £500 a month in maintenance and if it does - unlucky mate.

You

Would

Be

Amazed

Just totting up the big bills of the last 6 months probably matches your estimate for the mortgage. That is the exception rather than the rule. But it would have been a cold dark winter if the heating and electrics hadn't been done! And those bills don't include my own time in doing a lot of the work!

so for your maths to work and your monthly expense to be lower out you need to have a 300k deposit.... - also known as a whole house in much of the country.

I didn't provide any maths so there is nothing to work out.

Just totting up the big bills of the last 6 months probably matches your estimate for the mortgage. That is the exception rather than the rule. But it would have been a cold dark winter if the heating and electrics hadn't been done! And those bills don't include my own time in doing a lot of the work!

As I said - unlucky mate. My parents house hasn't had anything go wrong or any unexpected expense besides a new washing machine in 10 years - British Gas insurance covers the boiler at £9.99 a month, sounds like it would be ideal for you?

EDIT: As a quick edit as well - if what is being said is true and it's costing you £1000 a month in repairs it only compounds my argument further that it's absurd how much housing costs in London/SE - I'd also love to know how my landlord is paying his mortgage if he's only making 500 quid off me each month.

The house/mortgage cost pales in insignificance to that of which is decoration/maintenance/upgrades and just general refurb that your landlord used to take care of.

Yes but when you add in the value of your asset after 25 years...

Yes but when you add in the value of your asset after 25 years...

And what happens if prices don't go up like they have done in the past?

All the baby boomers will be selling up over the next 10-15 years to either fund their nursing home care or to release the equity to either use as their pension or give to their kids so they can buy their own place...

Prices are only going up at the moment because a) a tidal wave of corrupt foreign money has poured into London from 2012 onwards b) repeated government subsidies from 2013 onwards to stop the market from crashing. Neither of these things will go on forever.
Osborne has already realised that he'll fail to get the vote of the under 40s in 5 years time if they're still renting and unable to start a family...
He also realises that in 10 years time, the MPs in Parliament will be the generation that are currently priced out of housing and their agenda around house prices is likely to be different from the current one given their current experience.. by all accounts they're already learning the lessons their idiot parents forgot about living a life in debt...

The idea that UK house prices will always and forever go up is largely one based on experience of the last 20 years since we forgot about the 1989 bust. It's more akin to a religious belief than a fact/data-driven view which is why it's so damn hard to get people who believe it to think differently!

And what happens if prices don't go up like they have done in the past?

Doesn't matter. You still have an asset, assuming you've got a repayment mortgage. Even if prices drop to 10% of their 2007 value I've still got a house worth £25k. If I'd rented I'd have nothing.

it is much cheaper as a monthly expense to have a mortgage than it is to rent around here, forgetting the price of the houses and the deposit cost.

But thats like saying buying a £100k Porsche with a £99k deposit is cheaper than buying a £15k Fiesta with no deposit.

You can't 'forget' the deposit bit really. Or the stamp duty. Or the solicitors fees. Or the mortgage fee etc. - people with mortgage have had to 'pay' these costs as well.

Even if prices drop to 10% of their 2007 value I've still got a house worth £25k. If I'd rented I'd have nothing.

So, you think if the proposition to first time buyers was 'take out this massive loan and in 10 years time you'll have a house worth only 10% of that loan, with most of it still to pay back' - that people would be buying 😯

In any case you wouldn't have a house worth anything - you'd be living in a house owned by the bank and a massive amount of debt to pay off!

Like I said - quasi-religious-belief type irrationality underpins the UK housing market, not rationale assessment, if that's the best business case you can come up with!

Ever watched Life of Brian? They had a field day with this kind of thinking...