Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
tyres

Is Your Relationship Status Pricing You Out Of The Housing Market?

Recommended Posts

Is your relationship status pricing you out of the housing market?

More than four fifths of local authority areas have less than one in ten homes affordable to a single first-time buyer. Have you abandoned your hopes of ever owning a house? And how have house prices affected your relationship decisions?

I guess polygamy is the way to go

more herer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a subject close to my heart.

I'm in a long term relationship with someone, but we don't live together, but we do both live in London. Why you ask? It's a bit complicated, but in essence, it's about security of tenure. I'm fortunate enough to have a 1 bed HA flat on assured tenancy (this doesn't mean cheap rent btw) and he lives in a bigger place (house) on a AST.

Now, I COULD move in with him but then I'd lose my flat (I'm vehemently against illegally subletting it) and should his landlord decide to end the tenancy, we would have no where to fall back on. He COULD move in with me, but he would lose his extra rooms (for when family visit etc).

So, the upshot is we muddle along keeping two homes and staying at each other's at weekends/work days. It's not ideal, but it suits us for now.

If either of us won the lottery, we would buy somewhere to live together despite the prices, we just won't mortgage ourselves at these ridiculous prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Single working people paying for unemployed people to live in houses they themselves can not afford. All in the name of fairness of course.

Edited by doomed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a subject close to my heart.

I'm in a long term relationship with someone, but we don't live together, but we do both live in London. Why you ask? It's a bit complicated, but in essence, it's about security of tenure. I'm fortunate enough to have a 1 bed HA flat on assured tenancy (this doesn't mean cheap rent btw) and he lives in a bigger place (house) on a AST.

Now, I COULD move in with him but then I'd lose my flat (I'm vehemently against illegally subletting it) and should his landlord decide to end the tenancy, we would have no where to fall back on. He COULD move in with me, but he would lose his extra rooms (for when family visit etc).

So, the upshot is we muddle along keeping two homes and staying at each other's at weekends/work days. It's not ideal, but it suits us for now.

If either of us won the lottery, we would buy somewhere to live together despite the prices, we just won't mortgage ourselves at these ridiculous prices.

I didn't realise an AST was that big an issue. My friends have had the landlord serve notice but they generally give you a while to find a place and move out. Although its a pain to move, it does make you appreciate how much crap you end up buying that you don't need and change your ways.

Owning two houses may be a good idea but aren't you wasting a lot of money e.g service charges and additional rent/heat/water etc. It sounds like both of you want to make sure that, if the relationship ends, you can both go back to the way you were which seems implausible at this stage i.e its a long term relationship?

Even if you aren't saving for a deposit, could you not do something else with the extra money you would have if you lived together? Have you ever worked out how much you would save if you moved in together? In my experience, living together with someone also helps you realise your and their worst habits and helps you begin to tolerate and compromise in a relationship - its all the little things that make us the individuals we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a subject close to my heart.

I'm in a long term relationship with someone, but we don't live together, but we do both live in London. Why you ask? It's a bit complicated, but in essence, it's about security of tenure. I'm fortunate enough to have a 1 bed HA flat on assured tenancy (this doesn't mean cheap rent btw) and he lives in a bigger place (house) on a AST.

Now, I COULD move in with him but then I'd lose my flat (I'm vehemently against illegally subletting it) and should his landlord decide to end the tenancy, we would have no where to fall back on. He COULD move in with me, but he would lose his extra rooms (for when family visit etc).

So, the upshot is we muddle along keeping two homes and staying at each other's at weekends/work days. It's not ideal, but it suits us for now.

If either of us won the lottery, we would buy somewhere to live together despite the prices, we just won't mortgage ourselves at these ridiculous prices.

Have him move in to the flat and on the occasions the family come use the money you've saved to put them up in a hotel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? You could have swinging couples living together? Obviously maybe you'll need DNA tests to work out who the dads are.

I gather that the attraction of swinging is constant novelty. Living together rather negates that point.

Anyway, we digress...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a singleton this comes as no surprise.

Have him move in to the flat and on the occasions the family come use the money you've saved to put them up in a hotel.

THIS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Single working people paying for unemployed people to live in houses they themselves can not afford. All in the name of fairness of course.

+1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My flat is just the right size for one person, and while I know millions of couples squeeze themselves into similar one bed flats, we're both quite happy to pay the premium of keeping two households for the flexibility and extra space, and we have a dog. We're both working so can afford it. If mine was a two or more bedroom flat, then yes, he would move in I reckon.

I think the thing I was trying to illustrate was, going by the op topic, is that ridiculously high house prices coupled with insecure AST private rentals does affect our relationship. We're not complaining, it's not ideal, we've just adapted to our situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Single working people paying for unemployed people to live in houses they themselves can not afford. All in the name of fairness of course.

+ 2 :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to date while both in your 30s and living in a shared house is a bit like trying to date while living with your parents. It might be ok for students but adults need their own space. The 'bachelor pad' is a thing of the past.

And the need for dual incomes to buy a house means that the desire for a relationship is perverted from being about companionship and romance, to being about finances. There's always a little voice in the back of your head going 'you may be perfectly happy single, but if you had access to two incomes you might just be able to escape the rental trap'.

Not the greatest basis for a relationship. And I have no idea how anyone can ever afford to break up, if there is a mortgage involved. There is no denying that my coupled-up friends are far more financially stable than singletons like me, especially if they were lucky enough to meet their partner early in life.

The financiers have debased every human interaction into being about money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the way forward is having children and living apart, this maximises the income from working and child tax credit. Ex-wife receives around £5000 in benefits which we did not receive when I lived there, So someone in our position should just have moved out into parents house use the extra benefits to pay the mortgage...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say it was more to do with the unprecedented stimuli and wholesale encouragement of dual income debt servitude.

+1

People are now habituated to paying more than they can actually afford for their housing.

Hence household debt service ratios are still nuts compared to pre-boom levels, despite the reduction in interest rates and the fact that about 30% of borrowers are only paying the interest, (as per the December 2011 Experian report). Many of these households are not saving at all and were not contributing to a pension (as per the 2013 Resolution Foundation report)

In reality house prices are so high that on a repayment basis the point on the incomes scale where you can afford these prices is so high that a huge proportion of people cannot afford the prices. That means prices are too high. Attributing the problem to relationship status or mortgage famine or lack of supply or whatever is a failure to see the wood for the trees. Everything stems from house prices being too high. These prices levels are not sustainable, even at these interest rates. The only thing that quickly fixes major parts of the problem is a significant downward correction in current prices. The Bank of England are in the process of making sure that the banks can take their medicine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My flat is just the right size for one person, and while I know millions of couples squeeze themselves into similar one bed flats, we're both quite happy to pay the premium of keeping two households for the flexibility and extra space, and we have a dog. We're both working so can afford it. If mine was a two or more bedroom flat, then yes, he would move in I reckon.

I think the thing I was trying to illustrate was, going by the op topic, is that ridiculously high house prices coupled with insecure AST private rentals does affect our relationship. We're not complaining, it's not ideal, we've just adapted to our situation.

If you have a one bedroom social flat like me and its just under 50 square meters, it would have been intended for a couple.

http://www.singleaspect.org.uk/pm/

http://www.designofhomes.co.uk/015-space-standards-for-new-homes.html

Not saying you should live together (people can do what they like) but Parker Morris determined 30 square meters for a singleton and 44 sm for a couple or 'two people.'

Don't tell the Tories or they will start charging for under occupation!

My local ALMO recently converted some 1960's studio's to 'one bed' due to no demand whatsover and not that great a demand after spending a fortune on renovation. Pretty desperate to fill them in fact, and threw in WiFi, flooring and electric hobs to compete with the PRS.

Edited by aSecureTenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a one bedroom social flat like me and its just under 50 square meters, it would have been intended for a couple.

http://www.singleaspect.org.uk/pm/

http://www.designofhomes.co.uk/015-space-standards-for-new-homes.html

Not saying you should live together (people can do what they like) but Parker Morris determined 30 square meters for a singleton and 44 sm for a couple or 'two people.'

Don't tell the Tories or they will start charging for under occupation!

My local ALMO recently converted some 1960's studio's to 'one bed' due to no demand whatsover and not that great a demand after spending a fortune on renovation. Pretty desperate to fill them in fact, and threw in WiFi, flooring and electric hobs to compete with the PRS.

Ahh, interesting. It's a Victorian conversion rather than a purpose built place. I just found an exact floor layout on rightmove of a flat nearby and the floor plan states 51 Sqm. Hmmm... I suppose that makes me/him 'space whores'. ;) Nonetheless, while we can afford it and we're working and paying for it, we value the extra space. If we were on benefits, that would be another story and we'd have to make do with what we were given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, interesting. It's a Victorian conversion rather than a purpose built place. I just found an exact floor layout on rightmove of a flat nearby and the floor plan states 51 Sqm. Hmmm... I suppose that makes me/him 'space whores'. ;) Nonetheless, while we can afford it and we're working and paying for it, we value the extra space. If we were on benefits, that would be another story and we'd have to make do with what we were given.

Comes to something when people feel moved to explain themselves over the possibility that they may be taking up a space of 4m*5m more than they 'need'.

Approximately the area of a single garage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

People are now habituated to paying more than they can actually afford for their housing.

Hence household debt service ratios are still nuts compared to pre-boom levels, despite the reduction in interest rates and the fact that about 30% of borrowers are only paying the interest, (as per the December 2011 Experian report). Many of these households are not saving at all and were not contributing to a pension (as per the 2013 Resolution Foundation report)

In reality house prices are so high that on a repayment basis the point on the incomes scale where you can afford these prices is so high that a huge proportion of people cannot afford the prices. That means prices are too high. Attributing the problem to relationship status or mortgage famine or lack of supply or whatever is a failure to see the wood for the trees. Everything stems from house prices being too high. These prices levels are not sustainable, even at these interest rates. The only thing that quickly fixes major parts of the problem is a significant downward correction in current prices. The Bank of England are in the process of making sure that the banks can take their medicine.

Can't argue with that, although I'd say "deliberate obfuscation" in many cases, rather than an inability to see.

Pretty much everyone I know who has bought is skint. Lecturers, engineers etc. Professionals. I don't think any of them have more than 3 bedrooms either, and have 2 children on average. Their choice to buy of course. It's clear from seeing how they live that professional salaries for 30somethings simply cannot support a 'Tesco Value' family life, as many of them are also reliant on nil-cost childcare from relatives. That alone is worth a few hundred a month even on a part time basis.

Has there been a time in 'istry when merely having an entry level higher rate salary was such a detriment to enjoying a stable life?

Many of these peeps will (if they are not already) rue the day they bought imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comes to something when people feel moved to explain themselves over the possibility that they may be taking up a space of 4m*5m more than they 'need'.

Approximately the area of a single garage.

It does when the likes of the Windsors have a palace each, indeed several.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

People are now habituated to paying more than they can actually afford for their housing.

Hence household debt service ratios are still nuts compared to pre-boom levels, despite the reduction in interest rates and the fact that about 30% of borrowers are only paying the interest, (as per the December 2011 Experian report). Many of these households are not saving at all and were not contributing to a pension (as per the 2013 Resolution Foundation report)

In reality house prices are so high that on a repayment basis the point on the incomes scale where you can afford these prices is so high that a huge proportion of people cannot afford the prices. That means prices are too high. Attributing the problem to relationship status or mortgage famine or lack of supply or whatever is a failure to see the wood for the trees. Everything stems from house prices being too high. These prices levels are not sustainable, even at these interest rates. The only thing that quickly fixes major parts of the problem is a significant downward correction in current prices. The Bank of England are in the process of making sure that the banks can take their medicine.

People are individuals. When individuals are the ones who are buying, choosing what they borrow, to set the prices we have seen for year after year, into the reflation as well, then they make their own decisions.

It's not something for society to fix and smooth out for those who've outbid others for housing in the past - and day after day, month after month.

Anyway, in general houses now certainly aren't in a bubble nor are they overly expensive (imo) outside of London/SE. They may appear that way in the context of 80s/90s interest rates, but they're not when adjusted for current and likely future rates. % of income are actually quite reasonable. Wages according to the BoE will rise c 20% over the next 4-5 years and house price lending is nowhere near the limits they have just set. Buy a house - get on with your life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My flat is just the right size for one person, and while I know millions of couples squeeze themselves into similar one bed flats, we're both quite happy to pay the premium of keeping two households for the flexibility and extra space, and we have a dog. We're both working so can afford it. If mine was a two or more bedroom flat, then yes, he would move in I reckon.

I think the thing I was trying to illustrate was, going by the op topic, is that ridiculously high house prices coupled with insecure AST private rentals does affect our relationship. We're not complaining, it's not ideal, we've just adapted to our situation.

Pretty similar situation here, to yours, until recently. Boyfriend and I living in house-shares in different parts of London, separately. Both places were dirt cheap, in really nice parts of town. His place a townhouse in a private gated development, swimming pool, gym etc on site thrown in. Both long term term tenancies. If we had given up both places to rent a flat together our standard of living would have gone down. A 1 bed flat would have cost more to rent than our current outgoings, and we needed a 2 bed anyway because of his work (writer).

Like you, we didn't want to, and it wasn't really viable to squeeze into a 1 bed flat. So yes, high rents, high house prices, did affect our relationship, but not in a way that particularly bothered me as staying at each others wasn't a big deal. Of course there's no denying that actually being able to live together, with enough space at an affordable price would have been preferable by a long shot.

It's only recently (I've lucked out with a long term house sitting gig) that we're in a position now to live together. If I bought however, my budget would only stretch to a 1 bed flat in the London area, so we'd be back to living separately again (not that I want to buy a flat here anyway). It's a good job we're past the point of wanting kids or the same sort of living arrangements our parents had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are individuals. When individuals are the ones who are buying, choosing what they borrow, to set the prices we have seen for year after year, into the reflation as well, then they make their own decisions.

It's not something for society to fix and smooth out for those who've outbid others for housing in the past - and day after day, month after month.

Anyway, in general houses now certainly aren't in a bubble nor are they overly expensive (imo) outside of London/SE. They may appear that way in the context of 80s/90s interest rates, but they're not when adjusted for current and likely future rates. % of income are actually quite reasonable. Wages according to the BoE will rise c 20% over the next 4-5 years and house price lending is nowhere near the limits they have just set. Buy a house - get on with your life.

What are you up to Venger? A big quote from one of RK's posts on the FPC Meeting Today thread, but with no attribution...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   210 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.