Mortgage cheaper than rent?

You haven't included the essential cost to the owner though of the communal service charge for the block/ house. This is usually a minimum of £1800 a year £150 a month) but can be a lot higher - up to £5000 a year, £400 a month for a flat in a fairly average block. Managing agents cost a fortune!
And then the owner has to include an element for repairs and replacement of items in the flat.
Don't forget the owner is also paying tax on the WHOLE amount of the rent at their marginal rate, 20 to 45%, and rising next year, with only a small offset allowance given.

The figures don't stack up. You'd be better off putting that in an ISA as you're losing quite a bit of money.

So many financially illiterate people on this thread not taking account of the equity they have in their property, whether funded by their initial deposit, paying sums off their mortgage or a rise in value. Yes, my mortgage is cheaper than the market rent for my home…but my equity is 50%. If I bought at today’s value, with a 10% deposit, the mortgage would be much more than the market rent.

When I bought my first house in the 90s, my rent on a studio flat had been 320/month. The mortgage on our 2 bed house (55k, 10% down) was 265 a month.

These were in the same area, don't know what the flat would have sold for, but it was brand new, while the house was a small 2 bed semidetached cottage built in the 1700s - cute but poor insulation, old systems, etc. When we moved abroad a couple of years later we rented it out for 340 a month, going up over the next decade to about 450 a month. Mortgage went up because it was no longer our primary home, so with agents fees and maintenance, etc. we were just under breakeven for the first few years.

At the time it was generally the case that if you could pull together a 10% mortgage, at the cheaper end of the market it would be cheaper to pay a mortgage than to rent. What I didn't appreciate fully until we bought our first house was all the other expenses involved in maintaining a property.

I think in theory if you only compare mortgage Vs rent it will always be cheaper but that's clearly because upkeep/maintenance, repairs etc are all needing to be factored in. After that I'd say similar, although, I do think if you have an area of shitty landlords and so needing to move often rather than renting 1 home for 20 years it probably does have high costs when renting because of deposits/fees/removals etc..

When did I said I've bought?

I have moved out of London in order to have a chance at buying. I'm still saving up for a deposit.

Oh I see, so you did manage to buy.

I am fully aware that banks are not charities. I think that banks should offer lower deposit mortgages to individuals with extensive rental histories. And some do already! Brilliant.

I think it's more complicated than that
Landlord mortgages often don't pay off capital- at least everyone I have been offered do
You tend to pay 3-4% more interest on a landlord mortgage than a regular mortgage
The property i rent out I get 800 a month rent
700 is the mortgage- I am paying off the capital
However in 15 years time I will own it
The house is worth 180,000

Banks aren't charities.

The deposit covers the risk that the house goes down in value and doesn't cover what you owe in case of default.

I don't live in London anymore, I moved out so I could buy.

I don't have a pet. I don't go on expensive holidays. I haven't started a family yet. All of my friends are in the same position.

Guess what? Deposits are expensive. Renting is also expensive.

I cannot stand this constant demonisation of young people and the narrative that failing to get on the property ladder is due to some kind of moral deficiency rather than the symptom of an utterly broken housing market and soaring costs.

This. I think it is often true. In my street there is a similar property to rent and my mortgage is just over half what the rent is.

BTL landlords might be willing to accept the occasional loss but most don’t offer the service as a charity and can’t sustain loosing money year on year.

At some point you should probably just accept you were wrong, though.

I could easily rent out my house (£700 mortgage pcm) for £1100+. I’d have my pick of tenants. Average house, average area, huge demand and a big premium on rents). I

I just wouldn’t have anywhere to live.

Just a few things here . . . a significant proportion of homeowners I'm sure would like to live in London, but have sacrificed that convenience so they can buy a property rather than rent. In other words they felt owning a property was more important than living in an expensive area. Secondly I am absolutely sure that many homeowners have gone without so they could save a deposit, including putting off having children, pets, and going out. My point being it's not luck or being 'in a loop' for the majority of us who could save . . ..

it's true- we apay around £700 mortgage and bills on top, to rent the same house would be around £1300 and still have bills on top

It was certainly true for my DS who rented then bought in the same area. They had a 5% deposit and the mortgage on a 2 bedroom new house with 2 bathrooms and a garden is cheaper than a one bedroom basement flat.

Yes, on my road, all v similar houses

1 house rent £1100
1 house for sale £215k

If 10% deposit can get a 5 year fixed for 4.4% so £960/ month repayment mortgage over 30 years.

Finally 1 example out of about 200 that agrees with you, and you think you are in some way vindicated?

Sure.

I’d say it’s definitely true in London.

I could rent out my house for double what my sizeable mortgage costs me a month.