Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Property/DIY

Join our Property forum for renovation, DIY, and house selling advice.

Original poster

The shortest length of time you've intentionally bought for

17 replies

Bragadocia · 08/04/2014 16:38

I might buy a house. There's little coming on in the area we need to live, but what does come on goes quickly, so resale hopefully wouldn't be a problem (normal Vic terraces, nice area, decent schools etc). It's fine here, it is, but it's not somewhere I want to be for long. It seems strange to buy a house for only a year, 18 months or so, but, all things considered, it will in all likelihood work out better for us than to keep spending over 10k p/a on rent.

What's the shortest length of time you have knowingly bought for? Is it bonkers to buy for such a short period of time?

OP posts:
Cereal0ffender · 08/04/2014 16:47

It is bonkers because the costs involved in buying and selling houses run into thousands

Original poster
Bragadocia · 08/04/2014 16:55

But our mortgage would be half our current rent, so over 18 months we'd save over 8k.
Prices have been rising by 5% annually here, so a 200k house might increase by 15k if that trend continued.
And the 8k we pay in mortgages repayments will be making a very small dent in paying off the house. Unlike rent, which is gone

OP posts:
Cereal0ffender · 08/04/2014 16:58

What sort of price range are you looking at? Bear in mind that interest rate could go up in the next year

Original poster
Bragadocia · 08/04/2014 17:03

We're considering just over 200k - 210 or 215.
Do you mean the interest rate of a mortgage?

OP posts:
Cereal0ffender · 08/04/2014 17:06

Yes, interest rate will probably go up after the election which will affect property prices. Stamp duty will be around 2k, legal stuff 2k. Just make sure you are aware of all the costs involved in 2 house moves. Good luck whatever you decide.

Aethelfleda · 08/04/2014 18:02

It all depends on the size of the house and its value. Go over the £250k threshold (or the 500k one) and you're talking £10-20k stamp duty which wipes out any rent-save benefit. Unless you get a bargain or a do-er-upp-er or otherwise strike lucky it seems a bit weird to buy for less than 5 years....
.... But if you're in the rising London market I guess it skews the maths and makes a shorter purchase time more doable.
Main thing is to make sure you could cope if the market turned/circumstances changed and you were unable to sell and stuck there!

ShoeWhore · 08/04/2014 23:10

Have you factored in stamp duty and selling costs such as estate agent's fees OP?

The shortest length of time I've owned a property is 4 years but it increased by over 50% in that time (it was a while ago Grin )

RudyMentary · 08/04/2014 23:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lessonsintightropes · 08/04/2014 23:16

We did the sums and it made sense to buy our £220k place for 2 years. Hassle value high but financially a no brainer when we sold for £330k.

Beaverfeaver · 09/04/2014 19:54

We bought a house for £225k 4 years ago.

We are now moving.

After selling and buying the costs are £18k.

This will leave us with enough equity to put a big deposit down and have cash left for renovations.

We wouldn't have considered it 2 years ago.
The costs would have out weighted it

Me2Me2 · 09/04/2014 21:02

Crikey lesson I'm guessing that was in London. Was it recent?

Me2Me2 · 09/04/2014 21:06

Sorry that was off topic. And in fact I don't know why I'm surprised. We just bought a property that the vendor owned for 6 weeks and made 70k on. however, OP I think you need to be in London for the kind of rise that would make such a short term ownership good value.

lessonsintightropes · 09/04/2014 21:07

Yep SE27.

impty · 09/04/2014 21:08

18 months. We did this because the mortgage was cheaper than rent, so allowed us to save for a better house.

But it was 15 years ago. House 1 cost £29,950! House 2 cost £100,000. House 2 was new too so builder paid legal costs and mortgage deposit. 18 months of savings really helped us jump up the ladder.

Me2Me2 · 09/04/2014 21:09

Sorry that was off topic. And in fact I don't know why I'm surprised. We just bought a property that the vendor owned for 6 weeks and made 70k on. however, OP I think you need to be in London for the kind of rise that would make such a short term ownership good value.

Original poster
Bragadocia · 09/04/2014 21:19

The alternative is that over the next 18 months we will pay over £16k in rent.
Financially, if house prices don't rise at all, with the costs etc involved we would break even. If they continue to rise in this area, we will at least be part of that.
Hassle of buying and selling is the big issue. But I long for shelves, and to paint walls, plant borders, to not be subject to inspections, and to know we can't be given notice to leave.

OP posts:
Beaverfeaver · 09/04/2014 21:39

Based on that, I would do it.

Things change too, so you might stay there for longer, you might not.

You can do little improvements on the way which will recoup some money when you sell too.

We spent very little on ours but it improved it soooo much

New posts on this thread. Refresh page