Outnumbered - is the lifestyle realistic?

[Mrsemcgregor]

So I’ve been watching Outnumbered on Netflix with my DS (he loves it!) and I’m wondering if the lifestyle they have is achievable in London considering their jobs?

Pete is a teacher in a secondary school and is yet to achieve head of department and Sue is part time in what I assume is an admin/PA type role. I’m hypothesising that their joint income is likely to be around £60k? Maybe £70k. Where I live they would be lucky to be on £50k but I’m adding extra for London wages.

The house they live in is huge! I am not sure where in London it’s meant to be, but their is a scene where Pete mentions problems on the tube so I assume they are within the underground network. It’s 3 stories and at least 4 bedrooms and two bathrooms, a massive kitchen dining area, a garden and a nice sized lounge with a big bay window. Even where I live that would set you back close to £500,000. That house must cost a fortune in London?

Pete’s mum and dad are still alive as is Sue’s dad so I’m assuming no large inheritance, and they mention a mortgage so they haven’t inherited the house.

Can any London mumsnetters confirm or deny that this is realistic?

(I know I have far too much time on my hands and have given this way too much thought )

That’s tv land for you. People in films and television always live in unrealistic for their situation homes. In Friends Monica’s apartment was explained away by saying it was her grandmother’s rent control flat that she was illegally living in, but in so many shows I’m there grumbling, “No, no one lives in a place like that!” Even in EastEnders only the very old-timers would be able to afford houses in that (supposed) area.

Yes me too LittleRa - it's a fab house with a lovely big garden. I wonder where it's meant to be and where it actually is - maybe somewhere like Hampstead. At least in their case they're both successful lawyers so we can understand how they can live there.

@jessstan1 they do have very old beaten up cars, nothing new or fancy. The yearly holiday (which if I remember they book on credit) is only a half term week to a Spanish island. So they are living pretty modestly.

I think we can agree though that by 2007 the house would have been worth a decent sum? I wonder why they didn’t sell up and move out of London as they were struggling with debt. Sue only seems to have her dad to keep her there, but as he was in an old folks home anyway she could have moved him too. Pete doesn’t have much of a relationship with his mother, so I doubt he cared about moving away from her.

Artistic license. It’s the same for Bridget Jones. No way she’s be able to afford where she lived in London and her lifestyle on her tv salary! 😆

There seems to be a genre about struggling people who also have commodious homes..... Better things, the dutchess, so many dramas have homes with the wow factor that are unrealistic. Shows how much we valourise big homes that we are willing to make it look totally out of context so we love the aspirational glamour.

Our house (not in London) is very similar to these big houses. We got an inheritance and have a pretty big mortgage. It needs a massive amount of work as we got it cheap (our neighbours all done up is on for £1.2 and we paid just over half of that). We spend £2k+ a month getting stuff done and are always in our overdraft. I’m not complaining, it’s a gorgeous house. But it is possible to have a big house and be stretched.

I’m a bit younger than them and bought in London in the mid nineties. IME it’s completely realistic for a couple in their mid twenties in graduate jobs (so, perhaps a household income of £45k pre kids) to have bought a decent size terrace house in an “up and coming” part of zone 3/4. They don’t seem to be particularly near a tube or a train station - it’s a very car-driven show, which makes the house prices more plausible. Once you get into zone 3+ the distance to tubes/trains makes a big difference in prices.

The fashionable bits of Wandsworth/Clapham where the actual house was situated would not have been affordable even in the mid nineties though.

@MrsKoala yeah but in the Duchess she’s a part time artist single mum with a Givenchy dress and the decor is stunning.... she’s also looking at private IVF for kicks? She’s either a phenomenally successful artist or her billionaire parents tragically died...

Completely realistic. First aired in 2007 with an 11 year old child suggests that they bought it c.1997 or even 1995 before they had kids and when they were both working full-time. They are also always worrying about money, which suggests that they bought it with a large mortgage of c.20+ years.

Friend has the exact same set up. Her DH inherited a chunk of money from his Grandfather .

Artistic license can run the other way. No way would the scientists in BigBangTheory be living in a shared flat in dingy appt building next door to a barely in work waitress (who somehow affords her own place). The scientists would be on $100k/yr & living in small houses (very much meant as investments) in the foothills.

@pogmella I haven’t seen the Duchess. I do know an artist with an amazing house in Battersea. When H saw the area he said what a crap hole. I told him we couldn’t ever dream of owning a house there. Similarly couldn’t believe anyone would pay to live in Shepherds Bush let alone that we could only buy a studio flat! London is bonkers.

Not unrealistic if bought in the nineties/early noughties - I bought a 4 bedroom house in a very trendy area of Hackney for £350 000 in 2003 on a nursing salary and equity from a flat bought in the nineties.

@AnythingLegalConsidered

I’m a bit younger than them and bought in London in the mid nineties. IME it’s completely realistic for a couple in their mid twenties in graduate jobs (so, perhaps a household income of £45k pre kids) to have bought a decent size terrace house in an “up and coming” part of zone 3/4. They don’t seem to be particularly near a tube or a train station - it’s a very car-driven show, which makes the house prices more plausible. Once you get into zone 3+ the distance to tubes/trains makes a big difference in prices.

The fashionable bits of Wandsworth/Clapham where the actual house was situated would not have been affordable even in the mid nineties though.

Exactly.

However the show wasn't about the house but about what goes on in a family with children and their friends.

It was such a delightful series.

The actors are now together IRL.

If they bought in the 90s, possible. After that, dream on.

This is hilarious, we have these sorts of chats watching tv too!

A writer on Frasier recently tweeted that the writing team for the show would regularly discuss how Frasier would be able to afford his amazing apartment on a local radio salary

That's how out of touch I am/was before this thread. I thought the Outnumbered house was meant to be a bit run-down and undesirable and could never understand why Bridget Jones lived in a poky flat without a front door or anything, when she has a well paid job.

Friend's parent died about 20 years ago and they sold the family home near to that one for 250k. Her parents bought it in 1960 for about £3.5k. London house prices are insane now. I don't know how anyone can afford to buy. Chiswick a particular hotspot.

The Outnumbered house is meant to be a bit run down and tatty. The family is ordinary, they don’t earn mega bucks, and money is a worry for them. But people could afford houses on very ordinary salaries in the ‘90s. I’m one of them. All my teacher friends own houses.

@JoeBidenIsGreat

Artistic license can run the other way. No way would the scientists in BigBangTheory be living in a shared flat in dingy appt building next door to a barely in work waitress (who somehow affords her own place). The scientists would be on $100k/yr & living in small houses (very much meant as investments) in the foothills.

They are academics, even on the West Coast, postdoc salaries are around $60k. Bernadette would be the money as she works in industry.

There was a house price crash in the 90s, early 90s I think. Maybe they got a bargain on a repossessed property.

@ancientgran

There was a house price crash in the 90s, early 90s I think. Maybe they got a bargain on a repossessed property.

It was 1992- we bought in London then. our tiny house was £80k but they had paid £110. A house like that would still have been £175-200k then

This is like a discussion I saw the other day about how the Simpsons could afford their house

I grew up in Wandsworth, parts of it have always been expensive. My dad has a very good job so my parents could afford the big house on the road however most of our neighbours had "normal" jobs eg teacher with only one parent working. Think it cost them about 60k in the mid 80s & probably worth 2m now.

Here's the story about the sale of the house in Wandsworth:

www.homesandproperty.co.uk/luxury/celebrity-homes/bbc-outnumbered-house-for-sale-wandsworth-a139541.html#gallery

In the early 2000 similar properties were going for about £300-400k, so it would have been a huge stretch, but not completely impossible on their salaries, particularly if they'd had hell with the deposit (they'd only have needed £30-40k).

Houses in Chiswick, where they were supposed to be based, would have been a bit more, £400-500k, so out of their reach.

Prices in London are crazy. I earn 6 figures, and when I move back next year, I will only be able to afford to live in zone 4/5 in an average 3 bedroom semi-detached house.