To think people with an average mortgage are still far better off than their renting counterparts

[Theinventoroftoasterstrudel]

I met with a friend today who was moaning about having sorted their remortgage this week and how their payments have increased by £250 a month due to interest rises. She's now paying £1000 for their 3 bed semi and I do fully appreciate how stressful knowing this remortgage was due has been for them this past year and how painful suddenly paying so much more is. I'm not in any way trying to minimise that for my friend or others with a mortgage in this position.

However, I rent and we live in a very similar property in a similar area to her which I had been paying over £1100 for for the past 2 years and a few months ago this increased to £1250. When we were told about the increase we looked to see if there was anything we could possibly find for cheaper and everything comparable was actually closer to the £1400 mark.

I feel like the news has covered the impact interest rises are having on home owners virtually every day since the mini budget last September but renter's have only had a cursory 'and rents will increase due to landlords passing on their increases' at the end of the odd story. And with zero acknowledgement that rents were already so much higher than mortgages anyway and still are. It's not like renting has suddenly become the better option; it's still utterly impossible!

Am I being unreasonable to think there needs to be more outrage and support for renters and not just those needing to remortgage.

I think in the long term owners are usually in a better position than renters but it won't be true in every case. Think of all the flat owners with cladding issues - some have been paying thousands of pounds a year for fire safety patrols etc and can't sell because nobody wants a flat with unresolved cladding issues.

Then there are those who buy a new build that it turns out are so poorly constructed they are practically worthless. Over the last couple of weeks there has been news reports of one development where 850k properties may need to be torn down. The owners are in limbo and will pay a fortune in legal fees and other costs even if the actual cost of their property ends up being covered hy another party.

Then if you add to that all those in negative equity and then those who have their homes repossessed its clear that there is a significant minority who would have been better off remaining renters.

Makes me wonder why you’re renting then, if homeowners are getting such a good deal.

Really? You think everyone who rents has just decided they don't want to own a house?

mmmmm, yeah, really makes you wonder why everyone doesn't just, like, buy a 4 bed house.

Landlords always have to wang on about how everything is more difficult for them actually.

This thread isn't even about landlords and yet here they are moaning...

mmm, so believable

It's shit for everyone, and I don't think it should/ needs to be a race to the bottom. Renters won't see a monthly increase as they are protected from that- my mortgage payment has gone up 10 times in the last 12 months with rate rises. Renters get the whole increase foisted on then once a year- which is based in the payments increase and an areas popularity. I do think landlords though should also be happy enough to put rents back down when things are better rate wise.

Yanbu, the difference between us renting and now owning is huge and I find it so sad that things have changed so that not everyone can own- dhs parents were poor and were given a bridging loan so they could buy in the 70s. We bought in 00s before huge deposits came in. We pay four hundred euro less than when we rented a damp, cold house. So you are dnbu, everyone should have the right and option to own imo BUT BUT BUT you shouldn’t have linked your question to someone who could be finding it difficult at the moment financially, it’s in the same vein as when you rant about your job and someone says ‘but you’re lucky to have a job’- yeah, but at the moment I’m finding things tough, hence the reason I’m telling my friend!!!!

Forshameandyegads
I think you might regret your decision in the future, maybe think more about it!!

Yes thats the point of buying

Difference between mortgage on my house and rent is about that. Easily that has to go on the house. But it's not that you spend 3k every year. One year it's 1500 next it's 5k. Fucking dreading when boiler will go.
Last 12 months
Insurance 300
General upkeep repairs (gate loose, small fence patch up etc) cca 800 just on materials
Roofer 400
Boiler check 70
Toilet flush parts 20
Window handle 10 (just material)
Into repair savings 800
Next year there will not be roofer 🤞 but instead it will be fence and back gate 2.5k+. Probably will need to change toilet too. Old toilet flush mechanisms don't seem to 100% fit. The year after god knows how much on new boiler.
Small repairs are rice's without labour costs which make considerable difference.

Yes, people can still go with *bit it will be youuuurs" and yes, in 20 years it might. But yearly costs are not that different unless you have new build in Warranty.

YANBU.
I've had people try and tell me that at least renters don't need to keep up with maintainence and repairs, that somehow that makes paying a mortgage worse than renting. It is always going to be better to have the asset of a house. We are paying our mortgage off this year (may upsize and get another mortgage at some point) in our early 30s. Being mortgage free this young is going to be an immense freedom.

I understand what you’re saying and it’s a good point.
I’m a home owner but I agree the media is more obsessed with our struggle while interest rates are rising than the struggle of people renting.
I think it is harder for renters. They are affected by the interest rate rises too as this is reflected in higher rents. And they have the insecurity of renting to worry about too, especially with so many landlords leaving that business because it’s no longer as profitable.

You are absolutely right OP and I dont think you were making it into a suffering competition. I have a mortgage and where I live (one of the most expensive places outside of London) renters are usually paying double what people with mortgages are. I've been shocked at how high rental rates are.

This is why I never understand threads on here where people go on about how renting is so much better than owning. If you can own, its far preferable for reasons of cost and also the fact that you dont have to worry about your lease ending.

Another problem that owners have is they have to pay huge deposit, the costs of having an owning a him eg a broken boiler and then once it’s all paid off you go in a care home and half the house is used to pay for it. Those in rentals don’t have that issue.
I know someone has to pay and it’s not a fair system, I am not saying to do anything dodgy to avoid this issue (signing house to relatives or whatever) just pointing out it’s another negative of home ownership.

The clue may be in username.

You don't need equity in the home to extend the term of the mortgage.

You should stop blaming the government for all your problems and start taking some personal responsibility.

You chose to have 3 children before getting on the property ladder, you chose to buy a new build via Help to Buy which almost inevitably then fell in value (in the short term). It is a series of bad financial decisions that has led you to negative equity, unfortunately.

Yanbu and I say that as someone with a mortgage. I also don’t get people with mortgages arguing against. It’s easier to sell up and rent a place than it is to get a mortgage for a place.

I agree with this.

I have to say I was surprised how many people around mine went with help to buy on new builds which were 2x+, usually nearly 3x the price of older builds around and smaller for 250k. Eg. New build 3 bed 70sqm no loft space since that was a bedroom, while 40s 3bed 70qm + like 30sqm loft and it was under 100k. Few streets away from each other. And it's not like the new builds didn't have issues! They were also quite often leasehold.

The grass really isn’t greener on either side!

Of course it is - it is a lot greener on the side where the homeowner has a roof over their heads for no monthly outlay after paying off their mortgage. And then with a choice to sell the property - usually with a profit.

Not sure why you're trying to convince people that renting and then having housing benefit makes them better off - cos that's just nuts.

And don't forget interest. I think it works out that if you take 100k on 4% for 20 years, repayment would be about 600 so you pay back about 140k.

I looked into Help to Buy (always new builds I think) with my daughter as she was struggling to get on the property ladder. It was never a good scheme to make money from (as a buyer), only a last resort for people desperate to own their own place.

It's hard enough to make money from new build houses anyway (in the short term) - but the Help to Buy ones are not in the best locations, so even more chance of falling into negative equity because the only attractive thing about them is that they are brand new, which changes once someone moves in.

@Twiglets1 yesand what's absolutely mind boggling is they are often labelled "affordable"....