DH and I moved to a beautiful home in May 2009. Its half of a very large Victorian villa, and so has lovely big rooms and lots of character. But DH works very long hours, and takes the attitude that he needs to do nothing at all with the house - I don't mean washing up etc because he sometimes does that, but in terms of home maintenance.
This place was built in the 1890s in a traditional way, and there is a lot of roof with gullies and back gutters, many chimneys, gutters, down pipes etc to take care of. Not to mention the wooden windows, and the overgrown garden and outbuildings. He says he is willing to pay people to sort things out for us, but we don't have the money for a maintenance guy who can take care of it all from start to finish (like I guess the original inhabitants of the house did), so we still have to keep an eye out and have some basic home knowledge as to what needs doing/ is in bad repair and when. As DH barely ever sets foot outside except to walk down the drive to work, its very difficult/
Anyway, am I right in thinking that newer properties need less upkeep? DH is very miffed about the stamp duty, all the moving costs etc, but really, I can't see my life being learning how to take care of our period house because he doesn't think its necessary.