House buying WWYD: first time buyers and an ex-rental that needs a lot of work

[SarahAndQuack]

I'm driving myself crazy trying to figure this out, and I know there's no good answer. But help me figure out what's sensible?

TLDR: Should we buy a smaller, cheaper, more reliably 'sound' house, or the house we love, which was rented out for years and badly repaired?

Long version: We're looking to buy a first house. Our income is unstable - DP has a stable job but mine is a series of temp contracts. I'm the higher earner and it's possible I'd get a permanent job much better paid than my temp contracts in the end, but by no means certain. If I did get that permanent job, it is quite possible we'd have to move. We have one DD and would like to try for another.

We currently live in a rented house that's up for sale. It's been rented out for decades and repairs have always been done on the cheap. We have had a structural survey done, and while nothing was classed as an emergency problem, the surveyor said there was some urgent structural work. If all that needed doing was what he said, it would be pricey but not ridiculous for us. However, we're worried problems have been made worse by a bodged repair recently. (It's damp, and it's bad because they keep using modern mortar on an old house, plus the bricks are badly worn and need repointing/replacing).

But we love this house. We know that the problems it has would likely look worse to a casual buyer not prepared to pay for a survey, maybe to a professional too. We could make it lovely - it is large, with outbuildings that could be converted, and an enormous garden. It is in a 'desirable' location. The interior is so bad it would put people off for all sorts of trivial reasons that'd be easy to sort (think woodchip wallpaper, fraying carpets). If we took it on for five years or more, I'm fairly confident we could make it much, much nicer and sell it at a decent price (though of course you never know how markets go). OTOH, if we bought it and had to sell in a year or two, I am worried that the ongoing structural issues would make it worth even less than now? I am used to renting where you expect to lose money for living in a property, so can justify it to myself in that sense, but I am nervous.

For our (obviously unstable) budget we could buy a liveable house, but there would be compromises on size or size of garden, or they'd be in dodgy areas.

What would you do? And what would your considerations be?

I don't think I would buy a house with structural problems. What if it ended up costing way more than expected to fix?

As a first time buyer I bought a house which was structurally sound but needed a fair bit of cosmetic work to modernise it. It's perfectly liveable and we have been taking our time with freshening it up, bit by bit, so haven't had to swallow the financial hit all in one go, and have also been able to add to the value of the house. Not sure if you would be able to do it but by bit with a structural issue so I'd only do it if I had plenty in the bank to cover any contingencies.

If you think it’s possible you’ll need to move in a couple of years, buy a boring, sensible house close to a good school that would be easy to sell or rent out.

That’s the pragmatic decision.

If your heart is in the house you live in, and you want to keep it long term, haggle for the absolute best price and buy it ASAP - if you know your landlord, have already had a survey then you might squeak the stamp duty deadline if everyone was on it. But not if you’ll need to sell in 2 years. It sounds like a long term house. Could you rent it out if you needed to move?

Buy the house you're renting, it sounds potentially lovely

Thanks all, this is so helpful and I really appreciate it.

@violetbunny - yes, we could do the structural stuff gradually. Basically it needs the bad mortar chipping out and bricks replacing in various places, and repointing there and the chimney. It could be done in several stages easily. But obviously, yes, my worry is what if something awful happens!

@NoSquirrels - the house we're in should be easy to rent out, I think. When we viewed it to rent there was masses of interest. The issue would be maintaining it while we rented it, of course. The thing is we just don't know if we'll need to move, it's really uncertain.

@Macncheeseballs - thanks for the vote of confidence!

Selling any house 2 years after you’ve bought it is likely to lose you money, that’s the thing - solicitor fees, etc. So would your move be permanent to a new area, or would you ever want to live back in this house one day?

If you’d never move back, buy a boring house - you can rent out a boring house if you need to without worrying about costly landlord repairs, or you can sell if you needed to and probably will hold its (boring) value well. But if you didn’t ever get the job and therefore didn’t need to move, and had to stay permanently in the boring house, how would you feel about that? Would you always regret not buying the dream house?

It depends on your risk-reward tolerance really.

YY, this is a worry. And I don't know the answer. It could be we pick up and move elsewhere in the country and then have to move again in another two years; it could be we move elsewhere and need to sell because there's no likelihood we'll come back; it could be we move but rent this house out.

I think I would feel sad to buy a boring practical house, but I'd hope if things worked out we'd move on in a bit anyway. I mean, this house we're in might be a forever home but might also be somewhere we'd want to move on from if we had older children/teens.

Repairs have been done on the cheap in your current house and you know it. Repairing cheap fixes will likely take s lot of money. Do you have a lot of money?

Go by the quote given and tines it by 3 or 4 to be safe. Can you afford that?

If not, don't buy it, buy a safe house.

We probably could afford 3-4 times the quote for the work that the surveyor says is urgent (though we'd been thinking of setting aside less than this so you're helping us work out what we need to reevaulate).

We could not afford much more.

I would use the survey to try and negotiate a price reduction. Outcome might help inform your decision making and you may be in a position to do the work sooner.

If you could afford that problem alone, then fine, but what if there are more problems?

It's an old house, if they haven't been well looked after, they tend to be a bit of a money pit. You might be lucky and that's the only issue, or if could uncover more problems. You'll never know unfortunately until you start the work.

As someone else said, ask for a price reduction on the house, by a lot. At least it would be easy to rent if you needed to.

Yes there might be more problems with the house you're in but there could be problems with any house. Just because someone has owned a house before selling it doesn't mean repairs weren't done on the cheap. Sometimes it means repairs weren't done at all.

Renovating a house takes time, money, knowledge and a willingness to put almost everything else in your life ( holidays, weekends away, another baby ) on hold for as long as it takes.

You need to be realistic, work out how much you can do yourselves and what you need to pay someone else to do.

You need contingency plans for all your most likely risks eg

House has some major structural problems which take more time and money to fix.
You lose your job.
You have to move when the house is in the middle of renovation and you can’t sell it.
The stress of the renovation on top of two FT jobs means that your relationship ends.

TBH, @lovethewater, I'm hoping not to use the survey to get a price reduction! It actually looks much worse than the surveyor thinks it is. We think he's right having lived here, but there's cosmetic stuff that looks as if it could be covering up something awful.

@CakeRequired - yes, that's what's worrying me. Definitely I think you're right we need to be firm in our minds about how low we need the price to be.

@GreenSlide - that's a really helpful point, thanks. I suppose we feel because we've lived here, we've the opportunity to get to know what's wrong, as well.

@connie - that's helpful, thanks. Yes, we've tried to think through things. At the moment, we're working on the assumption I may have long periods out of work (either if we have another baby or if I don't get a job), so I think we're covered there. We'd be fucked if I didn't earn anything in five years, but we could cope with up to two years where we'd have to tighten belts but we probably could manage (obviously we'd be saving on childcare, which is what makes it thinkable).

I would always buy a house that is in a mess, and assume that you need to do everything and start from that point. Friends have bought newly renovated and new properties and issues have been covered up (in one case so serious the whole house which looked immaculate had to be ripped out inside) and they have still needed to do enormous amounts of work (and didn't have the price reduction in the first place).

The structural issues you seem to be talking about are easily and relatively cheaply fixable (you aren't talking underpinning etc.). You only have one DD now and it gets harder to do renovations with more children and as you get older etc. This also sounds like an area that you could live in for years. The costs of moving mean I would never contemplate buying and selling within at least 5/7 years. However, what are the schools like? Are you in good catchments? If you are then I would certainly go ahead.

Basically, I would totally buy the house you are renting, try and get a further discount due to the survey and start to cost and plan the renovations, taking time to get the right quotes etc. I have done this 9/10 times now and it has always ended well. Good luck if you go for it!

That's so helpful, especially in view of your experience, @sosotired1.

Yes, I think the work should in theory not be the terrifying stuff. The roof's fairly new and sound, there's no subsidence.

The school is very good - we like it a lot and it's well-regarded (can't remember Ofsted offhand but good).

But we can't avoid buying and expecting to move. We've been holding out and not buying for a long time for various reasons, but one is that my work is like this - it's all short term contracts and moving, for a long time. We just can't get around that, though obviously I could give up on my career and do something else, and that's not impossible.

Can I ask - what makes you think that the structural survey conducted by a chartered surveyor ( and presumably covered by his professional indemnity insurance ) is wrong ?

Me?

I don't think it is wrong.

Aside from the fact he seems to be very well regarded and expert, what he said tallies with our experience of living here (which can give you some idea of things, though obviously only in limited areas).

Buy the house you love, then. Fix it up, enjoy it, see what happens.

You know the house is liveable. You know where the problem areas are and what’s urgent because you’re already in it. There are no extreme surprises because you’re mentally prepared for the worst anyway. You know your neighbours aren’t an issue, that there are no hidden neighbourhood horrors like a rush-hour rat run or whatever. Go for it. At least you won’t pay moving costs.

We have had a structural survey done, and while nothing was classed as an emergency problem, the surveyor said there was some urgent structural work. If all that needed doing was what he said, it would be pricey but not ridiculous for us. However, we're worried problems have been made worse by a bodged repair recently

@lovethewater, I'm hoping not to use the survey to get a price reduction! It actually looks much worse than the surveyor thinks it is. We think he's right having lived here, but there's cosmetic stuff that looks as if it could be covering up something awful

@SarahAndQuack I thought at first you were saying it was worse than the survey said. And then that it was better than the survey. And now I’m confused.

I think what ages saying C0nnie is that it looks really bad cosmetically, and so buyers will assume the worst. But the survey was a pleasant surprise because it didn’t reveal anything more than OP knew was an issue through living there. So the survey’s not a great negotiation tool, but the idea that general buyers might downvalue it based on appearance is.

The fact they already live there so are known to the landlord and are chain free ought to be a big negotiation tactic too I’d think.

What's the worst that could happen?
If you buy the house you love and have to give up, how bad would it be compared to not trying?

@C0NNIE

We have had a structural survey done, and while nothing was classed as an emergency problem, the surveyor said there was some urgent structural work. If all that needed doing was what he said, it would be pricey but not ridiculous for us. However, we're worried problems have been made worse by a bodged repair recently

@lovethewater, I'm hoping not to use the survey to get a price reduction! It actually looks much worse than the surveyor thinks it is. We think he's right having lived here, but there's cosmetic stuff that looks as if it could be covering up something awful

@SarahAndQuack I thought at first you were saying it was worse than the survey said. And then that it was better than the survey. And now I’m confused.

Oh, sorry, I just didn't express myself very well!

We found the survey really reassuring. If you're inside the house, it looks as if there's awful damp in lots of places. Things like, the kitchen looks as if there's a horrible damp problem but it's actually just that they didn't use kitchen paint (there's no damp in the walls). The surveyor also reassured us that other damp problems should be fairly easy to fix as it hasn't penetrated as far/seriously as it looks like. There are places where it looks as if the house has structural cracks but, again, he thinks they're not.

I'm sure any knowledgeable house renevator would be able to take an educated guess on all of that looking round, but the state of the house would put off a lot of casual buyers, so we might be in a good position there.

That said, I am worried it might be worse than the surveyor said, just because it seems prudent not to take things for granted. He was pretty positive, but we've since had a bad repair done, so it could be that's made things worse, or it could just be it's not quite as good as he thinks (because obviously, there are going to be things where you don't really know the state until you get into it).

I'm saying, I'm torn between thinking we have reason to think it's not as bad as it looks at first sight, and worrying that, even so, there could be something unforeseen.

Does that make any more sense? Sorry, I've had it all going round in my mind for so long I don't explain it very well.

@NoSquirrels - yes, that's exactly it!

Some of it looks absolutely awful - the surveyor was quite surprised himself that it wasn't worse.

@Thelnebriati - that's a good point. I suppose even if we do lose money on it, we'd lose money renting anyway.

Buy the house you are currently living in. At least it will give you the chance to do it up exactly the way you want it.
And you have a good idea what needs done.
Buying a perfect looking house doses not mean that you will not come across unforseen problems.

Thank you @NoSquirrels and @SarahAndQuack for explaining.

In that case I’d want a survey report from a specialist surveyor and then quotes for the remedial work and the associated works from some reputable builders.

I’ve had a survey saying that a 25 year old terraced house was 100% fine.I had my concerns for other reasons, so I got a a specialist report which showed the whole ground floor was 25% damp.

If you're inside the house, it looks as if there's awful damp in lots of places. Things like, the kitchen looks as if there's a horrible damp problem but it's actually just that they didn't use kitchen paint (there's no damp in the walls). The surveyor also reassured us that other damp problems should be fairly easy to fix as it hasn't penetrated as far/seriously as it looks like. There are places where it looks as if the house has structural cracks but, again, he thinks they're not

Kitchen paint doesn't stop condensation / mould growth / water penetration / rising damp. It’s just easier to clean and resists greasy marks.

If The dampness in the kitchen isn’t “ in the walls “ , where do you think it’s coming from ?