Mortgage cheaper than rent?

We're buying after renting with a modest 15% deposit in the SE. Our mortgage will be similar to our rent, more after insurance.

I think you may have just started this thread in the hopes people would say that rent is a bargain in comparison to a mortgage they'd be paying £1000 in rent vs £2000 pm mortgage but in many cases it isn't the case and you can pay around the same for a mortgage as rent but you seem to be very dismissive of those who have said so. You also seem to ignore the fact property buying whether as a landlord or owner occupier is a long term investment and the benefits usually come a few years down the line.

Tell me what other costs you cannot pass on?
If your costs are increasing you increase the rent. It's basic business.
What costs are you talking about? Not repairs that are out of your control. Your words were general costs

Glad your complete ignorance on the subject is amusing us both. I'm certainly finding it entertaining.

It really depends, with mortgaged properties there are so many factors to consider such as:
what is the Interest rate of the loan?
Is it a Repayment or Interest only?
Term remaining
All of the above can decide how much you pay a month. A friend of mine pays £2700 pcm (25 years left) we pay £980 and have got 10 years left, there are so many variables..

That is entirely the problem of it being a leasehold flat with a management company that can do pretty much what they like as it's so hard to get them out.
You can't pass that on. I think that will come under service charge. Which again, you can't pass on .
Other general costs can absolutely be passed on or landlords will not make a profit. Why would you not pass on at least some of these costs?

The mortgage in 2026 would be cheaper too.

100%.

Our mortgage = £850.
To rent a house the same size as ours with the same land = £1500

Glad we agree.

So when I bought my house in 2013 for 90% ltv, I was paying £850 a month, my rent in a slightly smaller property was £650. However I realised the interest on my mortgage was much less than my rent (maybe in the £500s) so I considered that the comparable part.

However, rent 11 years later was £1400 and my mortgage was still £850. I had saved so much money in not paying rent increases (plus all the rental fees of moving every 2 or 3 years etc) We overpaid and paid off the mortgage early.

Buying always works out cheaper in the long run and you get to own it at the end (or at least have substantial equity) I've now got another mortgage as we had children and wanted a bigger place and my 5 year fixed mortgage is now £1400, the same as what my first smaller house would cost to rent. I would never be able to afford to rent my current property so the equity I accrued from the first property has made this possible.

I live in a fairly expensive part of the North West, if thats useful for comparison?

Why would you have to do that? It is part of what makes house ownership cheaper overall. Money paid and in the past. Unlike with renting that money is just gone to the landlord. Month on month the mortgage costs are now less. You got to look at it over the longterm.

When I bought my house around 10 years ago, my rent down the road was £375, landlord hadn't put it up in the 10 years i was there but rented it at £500 when I left. I got my house with a 9k deposit and my mortgage has always been between £430-£470. Currently £450. Houses the exact same as mine on this exact street are now renting for £850-£900. So you could argue my mortgage was more expensive than my old rent now but buying this place has massively protected me against rent rises and now I got around £80k in equity.

If I had managed to rent for the last 10 years at the £500 and no further rent rises i would have paid £60k and have nothing to show for it.

Who are you trying to convince that renting is the cheaper option?

It is the point of the thread!
People's mortgage is totally dependent on how much deposit they put down in the first place.
People's rent will be dependent on the market rate which will be determined to an extent by the landlords's mortgage companies who will stipulate the minimum that the landlords have to charge rent before they will lend them the money.
You asked where you could get a place for 800 pcm. I gave you an answer to your question
You are comparing apples and oranges

It is completely area dependent and complicated by the fact you’re comparing 2 different markets (sales and rentals) that have different market forces.

If you are in an area with a very strong rental market (lots of students, lots of transient workers, lots of immigrants driving up demand for rental properties) but with a low house sale market (due to rising interest rates and/or national or global economic instability) then typically it will be cheaper to scrape together any sort of deposit to buy a property and your monthly costs will likely be cheaper than rent.

Conversely, some areas may have a low rental market and very strong house sale market (exclusive areas such as highly sought after villages with excellent schools often fall into this bracket) will often cost a lot more to buy in than to rent in.

Sim landlords would have ended the current contract and tried their luck with £2000pm. They might get lucky or have to settle for £1700pm if it’s an area with a shortage of properties and enough desperate tenants.

Just because the market says it’s worth £1600pm doesn’t mean it will go for that. It’s a theoretical number based on all tenants and available homes being equal.

It is.

In most cases even with a 100% mortgage it's going to be cheaper than renting the exact same house, because otherwise the LL is losing money. Obviously.

And that's disregarding the fact that you obviously don't understand at all, which is the cost of a mortgage is the interest only, and not the full cost including capital repayment.