FTB How did you decide what to buy?

FTB How did you decide what to buy?

Author
Discussion

louiebaby

10,651 posts

192 months

Tuesday 19th February 2013
quotequote all
As a couple who have just had our first baby, in a two bedroom garden flat in Clapham, I would say go for a 3 bedroom house now, and save moving.

Mainly because we are in the middle of trying to decorate to sell and find a place a bit further out of town with a bit more space. With a 3 month old. And I now working 14 hour days.

If you can find and afford a nice 3 bedroom house in an area you like, get it now and save the hassle later. You can always get a lodger for a couple of years to make ends meet if you wanted.

RC1

4,108 posts

220 months

Tuesday 19th February 2013
quotequote all
if you know you will have a kid during the time you intend to stay in the house buy the biggest and best thing you can afford to...

money is cheap right now and bargains are out there so happy hunting

just be prudent in how you define afford and make sure you have some headroom in your affordability to allow for interest rate movements northwards

Bluebarge

4,519 posts

179 months

Tuesday 19th February 2013
quotequote all
Buy the biggest house you can comfortably afford, in the nicest area you can comfortably afford. Flats have noise/neighbour issues - houses less so.

If you buy small now, with the intention of moving soon, you may save a little on stamp duty, but you will be hit for two lots of removal and transaction fees and, if stamp duty thresholds or house values move in the interim, you may end up paying it anyway on your second move.

blueg33

36,073 posts

225 months

Tuesday 19th February 2013
quotequote all
In my dat you didnt have much time to think about it, FTB houses sold in minutes literally. We went for modern 2 bed terraced.

Unless you are in London, houses are generally easier to sell than apartments and easier to get mortgages on. Houses from 1990's onwards will need the least maintennance. Houses from the 30's and 50's often have wall tie issues, houses from the Victorian period often have damp issues, roof issues, rot issues etc.

BTW I used to own an estate agency. A nice Victorian house was always easiest to sell and always hardest to get through the valuation. Selling 1990's onwards is like shelling peas. Most FTB's want to avoid a money pit, not all period houses are money pits but they have a greater propensity to be one.

I know this is a cliche, but location is very important, plus research the neighbours

Good luck

caiss4

1,889 posts

198 months

Tuesday 19th February 2013
quotequote all
Bluebarge said:
Buy the biggest house you can comfortably afford, in the nicest area you can comfortably afford. Flats have noise/neighbour issues - houses less so.

If you buy small now, with the intention of moving soon, you may save a little on stamp duty, but you will be hit for two lots of removal and transaction fees and, if stamp duty thresholds or house values move in the interim, you may end up paying it anyway on your second move.
+1. So you don't have kids yet but it sounds like you're planning a family. Worst case is that the stork does not look upon you favourably but assuming that's unlikely work on the least number of moves possible.

If you go for the 3 bedroom house now, end up with two children, by the time they're hitting the teens you'll probably want a bigger house anyway but if circumstances don't allow you'll manage with what you have.

Of course the greatest plans can come to nought. I applied this approach a good number of years ago and bought a 3 bed in Reading but work opportunities meant a complete area relocation. By this time kid No.1 (gorgeous daughter actually!)had already arrived and No. 2 was on the way. Bought a house with potential for a large brood and thought it was the 'house for life'. But, that random plan generator (aka SWMBO), came in to play and we moved again at a cost of £25k stamp duty yikes

Still don't regret it though - you never know what life will throw at you!

New POD

3,851 posts

151 months

Tuesday 19th February 2013
quotequote all
Okay, we bought in an area which we could afford a 3 bed, which had space for extentions and loft conversions, on a mortgage which we could afford on one salary not 2 because we wanted kids and lots of them.
The area was a bit of a compromise, but 50% cheaper than where I wanted to live some 10 miles away.

What happened was different:

a) the mortgage rate went up. (to 15.5% IIRC from 9%) to we could barely afford it on 2 salaries.
b) we'd bought a big house in an area which when the local factory (AUSTIN at Longbridge) closed was very depressed so when I got a job offer miles away we struggled to sell.


Looking back I'd buy a house which had space to rent out a room or 2 in the short term, in an area that people want to rent, but that you WANT to live the rest of your life. Look at room for extentions and conversions, and if you decide to move, think about turning it into a rental property rather than selling it.

5potTurbo

12,556 posts

169 months

Wednesday 20th February 2013
quotequote all
I bought what I could afford at the time, but at 22 and only then earning £8k/year plus O/T, taking on a £38K mortgage with £2K down was really quite daunting! That was in 1992, and my, how times have changed! laugh

Now, I'd go "all in", and indeed I have on subsequent purchases as and when funds permit. smile



okgo

Original Poster:

38,189 posts

199 months

Wednesday 20th February 2013
quotequote all
Thanks everyone, I've had a look at the market around in a bit more detail, and it looks like I might have to move a bit further than I thought to get a 3 bed period house (I do live in London Suburbs blue33) but if you want to slum it with the poor you can get a 60's thing for about 350.

Think the best bet then will be to save and save a bit more, have that big lump ready and borrow as much as possible to get the best period 3 bed I can afford.

What do people class as 'affordable' in terms of salary multiple? We have household income of around 90k so perhaps we couldn't even borrow what it looks like I'd need anyway.

jdw1234

6,021 posts

216 months

Wednesday 20th February 2013
quotequote all
To get the best rate with HSBC I had to stay in 3.75x my income (base salary + (0.5 x mean average of bonus over last 3 years)).

I also could only get up to 60% LTV.

ScottJB

321 posts

144 months

Wednesday 20th February 2013
quotequote all
To echo what the majority are saying i was also of the mindframe of getting the house you ultimately want in the least number of moves possible.

Subsequently after renting a 1 bed flat for 5 years we bought a reposessed (developer went bust - we exchanged 2 days before it was due to go to auction) 5 year old, 4 bed detached house on a quiet cul-de-sac a few months ago. When we began saving we never thought we'd end up with that kind of property but we got extremely lucky (viewed the same day it was reduced, offered the next morning) and were able to secure the deal due to being able to proceed quickly (FTB, offer acceptance to exchange in 25 days in the end).

For us, once we were saving it became more apparent to us that a few extra months saving = a "better" standard of property (provided our earnings still supported the mortgage) so we kind of kept going. I can see us being here a long time, by contrast some of our friends spent not a lot less than us, but are already looking to move after only a few years in their homes.

Just my 2p worth - no right or wrong answers.

Edited by ScottJB on Wednesday 20th February 21:31

MrDecadent

2,188 posts

176 months

Wednesday 20th February 2013
quotequote all
We were in a similar position when I was your age 4 years ago, budget was similar - I went over stamp duty and went for a 3 bed semi a 25 min train ride from work. We didn't push ourselves to the limit (allowed 380k, but bought a house for 280k and spent 30k on it) as it was just after the housing crash and the economy didn't look that great.

I too figured I would be having kids and this house is big enough for the next 5 years (9 in total total).

I have found doing it my way renovating and having the house revalued and remortgaged (worth 350k now) I have got my self a much more favourable LTV and now save 350/month on the original mortgage payment. Something to think about maybe for yourself?

I'd recommend buying a wreck and doing it up before you have kids! My house is almost finished (just outside to do) and we've got baby on the way. I am glad I don't have the hassle of having to move out of London right now!



Edited by MrDecadent on Wednesday 20th February 21:56

elanfan

5,521 posts

228 months

Wednesday 20th February 2013
quotequote all
Earlier in the thread you mentioned stamp duty.
Bear in mind a £249999 house will cost you £2500 in stamp duty.
A £340000 house will cost £10200 so a difference of £7700

Bear in mind estate agents, solicitors and removal fees will far outweigh this if you have to move again. So go for the once only option!

Buy the worst house in the best street you can afford and you can always add value - particularly if extending is a future option!

Good Luck.

okgo

Original Poster:

38,189 posts

199 months

Monday 25th February 2013
quotequote all
I think having weighed it up what we are going to do is aim for a 2 bed with garden slightly further from the station, I've had a look and can still get within a 20 min walk/5 min cycle for around £250k (saving a lot on stamp duty)

I think having looked properly, I would rather buy the 3/4 bed house in a good area, and I just cannot afford to do that at the minute, so by buying a decent 2 bed a little further away that gives us probably around 7 years to save etc and then try and get the good house in early 30's, when hopefully salaries are higher etc.

The ideal will be that I can find a 2 bed that needs work in the good area, but will see what comes up I suppose. Quite lucky in that the 'bad' area is still somewhere most people wouldn't hesitate to live as its very pleasant, just a little further from the station.

Edited by okgo on Monday 25th February 10:42