Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Other subjects
Original poster

cheaper project, spacious new build on cul-de-sac or expensive dream house, which 1 would you go for???

52 replies

RanToTheHills · 05/04/2007 14:14

3 possible options to buy and mulling them all.
Option 1(if you're still with me) - a v small project needs complete overhaul and extension but in great location
Option 2 - sensible one, "executive"-type home not my ideal house but beatifully done and will be finished and moveable into very soon.On a cul de sac in a not as good location
Option 3 - dream house, huge, wonderful location,needs nothing to do to it but would mean mortgaging to hte hilt and selling off
family silver/pets/kids whatever!! Would probably need to borrow on top of mortgage in order to secure it.

So oh great MN jury,which option would you go for and why (if you're still with me that is!)

OP posts:
Aloha · 05/04/2007 16:29

1 - but check your finances carefully and rent a flat in the meantime not a caravan. That would make me want to top myself.

Aloha · 05/04/2007 16:30

Oh, and only 1 if you get it properly cheap.

Gobbledigook · 05/04/2007 16:31

Option 3 for me. Perhaps option 1.

No way in a million years would I go for option 2 - a new build on a cul-de-sac . Not my bag anyway.

Original poster
RanToTheHills · 05/04/2007 16:34

option 1's not cheap just cheaper! Gone way over asking price as got into bidding war so it's overpriced currently,if you like, but we hope to claw some value-add back by doing it up.

OP posts:
Gobbledigook · 05/04/2007 16:34

I'm very much of the 'stretch yourself for what you really want' mentality.

Original poster
RanToTheHills · 05/04/2007 16:36

me too but the man from lloyds tsb says "No"! We're checking out other options and with an IFA but the salary multiples would need to go to about 6x for us to getit, not sure if that's wise or even possible.Wehave a BTL already which is also obviously a factor though it has always been totally self-funding.

OP posts:
alipiggie · 05/04/2007 16:38

Would you really regret not moving into 3? If it's your dream home. However, could you not make Option 1 as near as damn it like it?

I'd love my dream home, but financially I wouldn't risk it.

Original poster
RanToTheHills · 05/04/2007 16:40

we might, but 6x income on the mortgage multiple? It's a hell of a gamble,isn't it?

OP posts:
Tinkerdumpsandruns · 05/04/2007 16:40

Not 2.

Tinkerdumpsandruns · 05/04/2007 16:42

6 x income for mortgage? Oh god, no. Option 1. Option 3 may seem like it needs nothing doing to it but it will, something will bug you when you move in

noddyholder · 05/04/2007 16:44

Option 1 although I can see you are tempted by option 3 but could you afford it if your circumstances changed or interest rates rose?

Original poster
RanToTheHills · 05/04/2007 16:44

if we sold our buy-to-let and released the equity the multiple would come down to 4.75/5 x salary. So a bit more comfortable!

OP posts:
noddyholder · 05/04/2007 16:45

sell the btl then but don't take out 6x mortgage Crazy!

Aloha · 05/04/2007 16:45

I'd find something else!

Original poster
RanToTheHills · 05/04/2007 16:48

if we sold the btl wouldn't have to take out such a high mortgage,would still be large though.option 1 is looking the most likely.

OP posts:
hunkermunker · 05/04/2007 16:49

I wouldn't do 6x multiple. We're just about to move into a 4x multiple house and it was a stretch to get them to lend it to us. I think you'll struggle to get someone to lend you 6x salary - although if you have a sizeable deposit to put down, that might help.

Are there any other options? I'd be tempted by 2, because I know how pissed off I'd be living in rented or caravan while the work too place. And while I do think that you need to stretch yourself while you can for what you want, there's stretching and there's "I want to top myself, this mortgage is too massive".

Original poster
RanToTheHills · 05/04/2007 16:51

ikwym! I live in fear of having that feeling.Option 2 feels v comfortable but rather boring.

OP posts:
Original poster
RanToTheHills · 05/04/2007 17:38

oh and no other options really. Well at all actually.Amazed we now have a choice as there's such a shortage.

OP posts:
Earlybird · 05/04/2007 17:45

Personally, I hate the feeling of being financially stretched to the limit. It keeps me awake at night, when every little extra expense or price increase matters. I also want to be able to treat myself and dd to some extras from time to time without counting every penny. So based on that, I personally wouldn't go for option 3 unless you could figure out some other way of managing it (could your families help out in any way to make it more attainable?)

Original poster
RanToTheHills · 05/04/2007 18:18

unfortunately not in a position to help - mine won't though fair enough, I suppose, dh's can't

OP posts:
Mirage · 05/04/2007 22:07

I'd go for option 1.We did this 2 years ago & although we are still renovating,very,very slowly,we don't regret it.We don't plan on moving for years as houses in this village come up for sale once in a blue moon,& I could never go back to living in a town again.
Option 3 would give me sleepless nights & option 3 would make me shudder-I'm not an 'executive house' person.

Original poster
RanToTheHills · 06/04/2007 10:14

thinnk we're probably coming round to option 1.

OP posts:
edam · 06/04/2007 10:38

Option 1 would be the sensible choice in terms of long-term return on your investment and in terms of making it into your dream house. Option 3 is bloody dangerous, couldn't cope with the worry myself (our house was repossessed in the mid-80s recession when I was a teenager). Option 2 you would regret not going for one or three.

We went for location not house when we bought this place. House irritates me but not enough to move away from where we are, IYSWIM. And when we get round to it we will make it nice!

LadyMacbeth · 06/04/2007 10:41

Speaking as someone who gets heavily involved in DH's property developments, option 1. There's profit in it and when you have made a profit you can go for something like option 3 without such a huge mortgage. A no brainer to me but then I'm used to living in wrecks!

Cloudhopper · 06/04/2007 10:44

It really is each to their own. But I would always go for lower fixed costs - ie mortgage, and then have some money left to enjoy life.

It is easy to get carried away when you see what you could live in, and bust the budget. But if it means spending all your time worrying about money and making sacrifices, then it might be a millstone round your neck.

There are so many Mners who post about the hardship of having stretched themselves on the mortgage.

THe exception to this would be if you expect your salaries to go up significantly within a few years, and it will just be a temporary hardship. In that case I would stretch knowing that I will not have to move again ever!