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
Property/DIY

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

Original poster

Sell property now or wait for a possible price rise

39 replies

littlemonkeyface · 21/04/2014 16:17

Hi

Obviously no one here has a crystal ball but would really like to hear what you would do in our situation.

DH has accepted a new job which will take us abroad for the next couple of years.

We have a house that we definitely will not rent out (last property got trashed which cost us thousands) but could be left empty until best time to sell (no mortgage so only running costs to pay).

Properties around here (south west) are selling quite well but prices are not back to 2007 levels (yet?).

So would you sell now or wait for a possible price rise?

TIA

OP posts:
Sunnyshores · 21/04/2014 17:04

Assuming you can afford the monthly outgoings - What would you do with the money from the house sale? If its only going to be in your bank getting 1% interest, I'd say hold onto the house for another year and review it again.

Original poster
littlemonkeyface · 21/04/2014 18:02

Money would sit in the bank at low interest rate (unless rates suddenly rise of course).

OP posts:
specialsubject · 21/04/2014 18:42

sell it. Leave it empty for 2 years and it will wreck itself. And I doubt you'll get insurance.

TunipTheUnconquerable · 21/04/2014 19:00

You need to make a realistic assessment of the running costs (bills, council tax, maintenance, and above all insurance which might be high for an empty house) and then figured out how much prices would have to rise to cover that.
Unless you have a trustworthy person to keep an eye on it I'd have thought it would be quite stressful owning an empty house in another country.

breatheslowly · 21/04/2014 19:16

Do you know where you will be located when you return?

Original poster
littlemonkeyface · 21/04/2014 20:22

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

House is in pretty safe area and we have a friend who is prepared to keep an eye on things.

Insurance has been sorted and running costs no more than around 3k a year.

We have no idea where we will be when we come back (possibly near company's headquarters in Berkshire) and would usually not hesitate to sell.

But everything seems so volatile at the moment and we worry that we may not be able to buy back at same level if prices continue to rise.

OP posts:
hotcrosshunny · 21/04/2014 20:39

I would sell or rent but that's because I'm cautious. How did it get wrecked? I wouldnt have thought that was the norm.

ClothesFlowingInTheWind · 21/04/2014 20:41

I would keep it, you have somewhere to come back to for the holidays as well.

MrsJohnDeere · 21/04/2014 20:45

Can you get insurance to leave it empty?

I would sell now if there really is no one else who could stay there. Could a family member stay for a nominal rent?

MrsJohnDeere · 21/04/2014 20:45

Sorry.missed the post where you said insurance was sorted.

Blu · 21/04/2014 20:49

I would look into a more foolproof way of renting, via corporate tenants or a very efficient agency or something. With insurance to cover wrecking etc. surely that has to be cheaper than paying £3k a year to leave it empty? And a wrecked house is not the usual experience when places are rented, is it?

Original poster
littlemonkeyface · 21/04/2014 21:05

Really don't want tenants as last place had nearly new kitchen and carpets totally ruined (deposit didn't even cover the cost of replacing the carpets).

No family member nearby who could live in the property but friend who will keep an eye on things (but lives in own house).

Nice to keep property for holidays but not something that would make us decide not to sell.

Just so worried DH's promotion may ultimately cost us dearly if we get off the property ladder at the wrong time.

OP posts:
ShakeYourTailFeathers · 21/04/2014 21:08

I'd be inclined to keep it - if you're friend is trustworthy and will sort out any issues if they arise, and you say your insurance is sorted.

MrsSteptoe · 21/04/2014 21:08

I'd hold on to it, I think, OP. This absurd house price business still has legs. I'd rent it out, but I understand what you're saying about not wanting to do that. Make sure your arrangements for keeping an eye on the house are rock solid, tho.

beaglesaresweet · 22/04/2014 00:32

can't really see any advantage in selling now, Op (since it will be looked after and insured). If you are not in a remote location in SW, prices can well rise some more.

bishboschone · 22/04/2014 00:37

I have lived in my current house for 24 years . We have just sold and it's sold for.the.most it's ever been valued at. im in the south east .I would sell .

bigpiglet · 22/04/2014 00:41

Think you might have to consider CGT if selling a property that is not your main home. That would affect the potential advantage of holding on for price rises, but I can imagine that the price rise will make up for it.

beaglesaresweet · 22/04/2014 01:24

the thing is, SW is less predictable regarding price rises, it is not at all like the SE. it really does depend where you are exactly. Some places haven't moved at all, and obviously parts of Somerset have fallen.

TunipTheUnconquerable · 22/04/2014 09:09

I think for 3k a year and with the friend to keep an eye on it, I'd keep it.
From what you've said I suspect that for you this is partly about the anxiety of not owning somewhere and even if prices stay static in your area and the rise doesn't cover the 3k, you'd rather have the security of knowing you've got somewhere to go back to.

mrsbucketxx · 22/04/2014 09:15

Keep it I did a similar thing and moved away it didn't work out and we came back. Only sell if you really need too.

I might be doing the same again soon and we will rent because coming off the property ladder would be silly when we almost have no mortgage.

MillyMollyMama · 22/04/2014 09:22

It would remain their main home ( so no CGT) if the OP does not buy a property abroad.

I would be inclined to keep it and get it checked out for maintenance, especially in the winter. I would also ask relatives to have a holiday in it. Assuming they will look after it. Come back yourselves for a holiday; unless you are in Australia/New Zealand of course!

specialsubject · 22/04/2014 10:36

keeping an eye on is not the same as living in. the place will get really musty and damp.

I know you've had a bad experience with tenants (landlord-haters, take note) but is it not possible to get some thoroughly vetted ones, have insurance against malicious damage, rent guarantee etc?

Twooter · 22/04/2014 10:41

Friend may well be happy to keep an eye on it, but it will be a nuisance for 3 years. Fine if everything goes well, but if the roof starts leaking or you get burst pipes, mice , whatever, could end up being a real faff.

Beastofburden · 22/04/2014 10:47

I would rent it out, but this time use a good professional agent. If you leave it empty you are at risk from squatters who will definitely trash the place and are very hard to get out again, not to mention damp, and all the other maintenance issues of an empty house.

Meaning this kindly- you had one bad experience and now you're being irrational about renting it out, really. Use a good professional agent, take up references. It is the best way to protect your house.

I wouldn't sell it because once you leave the property market you will find it harder to get back in- plus the transaction costs are fierce. Really, just compare them: case (a): Three years post-tax rental income, less costs including any possible damage; case (b) transaction costs of selling plus some loss in capital value as the market rises- case b is going to cost you a lot more.

5ofus · 22/04/2014 10:51

I think houses need to be lived in. There is a chance that damage done by non occupation could be worse than renters. In your place I would remove anything of value into storage then rent it to a well vetted renter.