One in 5 flats bought since 2016 in negative equity (London a lot worse)

[Pop321]

4 hours ago, desiringonlychild said:

Its to do with job availability. Also my husband is a 4th generation londoner and we are both from ethnic minorities where london is a lot more comfortable for us (though the HKers seem happy in blackpool). I have a friend in Yorkshire who can't even afford to buy a house despite being in late 30s as she is on a contract role and her husband is a delivery driver. We returned to England at the same time but my husband and I managed to buy as we both have permanent jobs.  She has a masters degree too. It seems to be that in the north, its very polarized, some people can get decent jobs but the vast majority are on minimum wage or very low wages hence the lower property prices. in London and the south, more people can get ok paying jobs and most people i know have fairly high disposable income even after housing costs. Also I can always retire in Manchester (and recover the money I spent in London on housing).

I do live near Bishops Avenue so its a lot more expensive than the average london house price of 500k. 

Yep, no jobs up here…best the majority stay in the sunny south. Majority I know up here work for National firms…I had a ‘London’ role but worked 95% remotely (lucky our technology was ahead on the game for this). Teachers, police, nurses, doctors, mechanics, plumbers, builders, electricians, planning officers, ATM engineers, firemen, shop assistants, coffee shops, BT engineers, financial services, farming, fitness centres, M&S, Waitrose and ASDA…. Reality is it’s not much different in the good areas.

However, I absolutely agree a 4th generation Londoner should NOT have to move…that’s a different point but in fairness one that totally trumps the point I was making. 👍🏻

[desiringonlychild]

25 minutes ago, Pop321 said:

Yep, no jobs up here…best the majority stay in the sunny south. Majority I know up here work for National firms…I had a ‘London’ role but worked 95% remotely (lucky our technology was ahead on the game for this). Teachers, police, nurses, doctors, mechanics, plumbers, builders, electricians, planning officers, ATM engineers, firemen, shop assistants, coffee shops, BT engineers, financial services, farming, fitness centres, M&S, Waitrose and ASDA…. Reality is it’s not much different in the good areas.

However, I absolutely agree a 4th generation Londoner should NOT have to move…that’s a different point but in fairness one that totally trumps the point I was making. 👍🏻

My husband's great grandfather was a tailor in the East End (Jewish refugee). Grandfather was a London black cab driver, managed to buy a 3 bed house in Wembley (which he still lives in at the grand old age of 92). Father lost his job in the 90s recession but still managed to buy a 3 bed terrace in north london in 1997 for 100k with help from family and a working wife, even with 4 kids. my husband works in an investment bank but we only managed to afford our 2 bed flat near his mum's house due to us staying with his mum rent free for 3 years.  As a result, his sisters have left london for israel (cos the rent is lower than London and there are schemes that help with cost of living for new immigrants) but ironically  the israeli housing crisis seems much more serious than the uk one so I am not sure thats much of an improvement long-term.

 

I didn't say there were no jobs, just said its more limited. My husband's sister was up north for years, but she is now immigrating to israel because there are more opportunities for a young person in israel.  

[Pop321]

1 hour ago, desiringonlychild said:

My husband's great grandfather was a tailor in the East End (Jewish refugee). Grandfather was a London black cab driver, managed to buy a 3 bed house in Wembley (which he still lives in at the grand old age of 92). Father lost his job in the 90s recession but still managed to buy a 3 bed terrace in north london in 1997 for 100k with help from family and a working wife, even with 4 kids. my husband works in an investment bank but we only managed to afford our 2 bed flat near his mum's house due to us staying with his mum rent free for 3 years.  As a result, his sisters have left london for israel (cos the rent is lower than London and there are schemes that help with cost of living for new immigrants) but ironically  the israeli housing crisis seems much more serious than the uk one so I am not sure thats much of an improvement long-term.

 

I didn't say there were no jobs, just said its more limited. My husband's sister was up north for years, but she is now immigrating to israel because there are more opportunities for a young person in israel.  

Sounds like a great history and a wonderfully proud one. And it’s awful that the housing costs are high for locals such as yourselves.

My comment is aimed to non locals starting out looking for streets paved with gold. I think we are being taught ‘London is where it’s at’ because it suits an agenda of expansion ie high wages high spending equals more government revenue. The north might be more limited but it doesn’t need to have the same opportunities because you don’t need the same income.

My role was a senior one but the reward package was probably 70% of peers in London. But my commute was 5 minutes instead of 1.5 hours and my housing was better. And earning were enough to retire at 50 although I was a frugal saving with retirement being my ambition from my early 20’s.

But please don’t get me wrong….if someone is local then they should able to stay…I am just advocating the north, which in theory if everyone (who could)  did as I did it would make housing down south cheaper for locals 😉

Edited October 27, 2021 by Pop321

[Kosmin]

On 26/10/2021 at 12:06, Insane said:

I have heard a rumour just a rumour that when the Government pulls out of HTB in 2023 there are private equity companies willing to take it up , so you will get your % from them and not the Government.  

I don't think it would make sense for any non-governmental organisation (especially not those seeking to make a profit) to operate a scheme like HTB. I also don't think it would make sense for a mortgage lender to lend in cases where another organisation (aside from the government) was lending money for the deposit.

There are two reasons why HTB works for mortgage lenders (neither of which are present for profit making companies):

1) The government is able to sustain extremely high losses from HTB and is probably willing to lose money on it over all.

2) The government is able to implement policies to keep house prices high.

 

If this did make sense, wouldn't it make more sense for one organisation to lend the whole amount?

i.e. If a buyer has a small deposit and borrows 5xsalary from the bank and another 1 or 2xsalary using HTB, why wouldn't the bank offer to lend 6 or 7xsalary if the government removed HTB? (A bank won't lend more than 5xsalary, because they think the risk of default is too high. If they agreed with the assessment of another private lender that they could afford the repayments, wouldn't they just lend more? If they didn't agree, they wouldn't lend at all.)

[Insane]

9 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

I don't think it would make sense for any non-governmental organisation (especially not those seeking to make a profit) to operate a scheme like HTB. I also don't think it would make sense for a mortgage lender to lend in cases where another organisation (aside from the government) was lending money for the deposit.

There are two reasons why HTB works for mortgage lenders (neither of which are present for profit making companies):

1) The government is able to sustain extremely high losses from HTB and is probably willing to lose money on it over all.

2) The government is able to implement policies to keep house prices high.

 

If this did make sense, wouldn't it make more sense for one organisation to lend the whole amount?

i.e. If a buyer has a small deposit and borrows 5xsalary from the bank and another 1 or 2xsalary using HTB, why wouldn't the bank offer to lend 6 or 7xsalary if the government removed HTB? (A bank won't lend more than 5xsalary, because they think the risk of default is too high. If they agreed with the assessment of another private lender that they could afford the repayments, wouldn't they just lend more? If they didn't agree, they wouldn't lend at all.)

That was long winded 

As I said it was just a rumour , but we never know what is going to happen do we.  

Can you show me how much the Government has lost on HTB ? I don't have any figures but my guess is so far they have made , made quite a lot. 

 

[MattW]

On 24/10/2021 at 14:02, byron78 said:

I'm amazed anyone can live in a flat tbh.

I manage! Currently living in my fifth flat since flying the nest nearly 18 years ago. Mind, the one I'm currently in has a distinct lack of soundproofing between the floors. It's a council flat built in 1969. 

I'd like to move but all I can afford is...another flat! 

[Kosmin]

8 minutes ago, Insane said:

I said it was just a rumour , but we never know what is going to happen do we.  

We know that private equity companies won't deliberately try to lose money, so I think in this case we know that it won't happen.

10 minutes ago, Insane said:

Can you show me how much the Government has lost on HTB ? I don't have any figures but my guess is so far they have made , made quite a lot. 

I think it's probably loss making. If prices fall, the government makes a loss on the houses with HTB loans. If prices rise, the government loses as it has to lend ever larger amounts to those who take out future HTB loans.

Why don't you think they would continue the scheme forever if it were profit making?

[Insane]

3 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

We know that private equity companies won't deliberately try to lose money, so I think in this case we know that it won't happen.

Yes we know they are there to make money not lose it , how do you know they will lose on it ? 

" so I think in this case we know that it won't happen" It's not we it is you , so do you think ? or do you know ? 

6 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

I think it's probably loss making. If prices fall, the government makes a loss on the houses with HTB loans. If prices rise, the government loses as it has to lend ever larger amounts to those who take out future HTB loans.

So no figures you just think . HTB was 20% here in Essex when it started in 2012 some of the places bought on it have nearly doubled in value since so the Government lending 20% on a £250k house i.e. £50k now see that stake at £100k , do you think that is a lose ? 

If prices rise the government do not lose by lending larger amounts !!! 🤣 Lol do you understand what a lose is ? 

[Kosmin]

46 minutes ago, Insane said:

Can you show me how much the Government has lost on HTB ?

Misplaced Help to Buy threatens "substantial losses" - FTAdviser.com

"The Help to Buy equity scheme could leave the government with a "substanital loss" ....

MPs raised concerns about the scheme in a committee report"

Do you think they would do this if it were making a lot of money?

[Insane]

Just now, Kosmin said:

Misplaced Help to Buy threatens "substantial losses" - FTAdviser.com

"The Help to Buy equity scheme could leave the government with a "substanital loss" ....

MPs raised concerns about the scheme in a committee report"

Do you think they would do this if it were making a lot of money?

Has not happened yet it is a warning but it has not happened.

Any figures on how much they have made with a rising market over the last 9 years ? 

[Kosmin]

7 minutes ago, Insane said:

Yes we know they are there to make money not lose it , how do you know they will lose on it ? 

" so I think in this case we know that it won't happen" It's not we it is you , so do you think ? or do you know ?

Another poster pointed out this wouldn't happen, so it's not just me.

I know that the government introduced HTB because there were people who couldn't obtain mortgages because it wasn't commercially viable for banks to lend to them.

It's possible that the government earns a return on HTB, but it's very unlikely to earn a return high enough to be commerically viable (it is risky lending - to borrowers with the worst affordability on new builds, at low interest rates). 

17 minutes ago, Insane said:

So no figures you just think . HTB was 20% here in Essex when it started in 2012 some of the places bought on it have nearly doubled in value since so the Government lending 20% on a £250k house i.e. £50k now see that stake at £100k , do you think that is a lose ? 

HTB was introduced to increase lending to people who couldn't obtain a big enough mortgage. Prices have increased in real terms, so people rely on more HTB. What options are there?

1) The government discontinues HTB and prices fall. This results in a loss on the houses in which they have equity.

2) The government spends more on HTB. It earns a return on the earlier houses in which it has equity. But this is outweighed by the increased spending on HTB required. It only continues to gain on the earlier houses as long as  it continues to increase the amount of spending on HTB. It's like a ponzi scheme, but as well as finding new suckers, the government today relies on increased spending in the future (i.e. the government is its own sucker).

25 minutes ago, Insane said:

If prices rise the government do not lose by lending larger amounts !!! 🤣 Lol do you understand what a lose is ? 

Do you understand what a lose is?

[Insane]

11 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

Another poster pointed out this wouldn't happen, so it's not just me.

So that is two of you wow , another poster agreed with me so 2 all. 

12 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

I know that the government introduced HTB because there were people who couldn't obtain mortgages because it wasn't commercially viable for banks to lend to them.

But up till now it has been viable. If the Banks had lent 95% on all those HTB properties they would not have incurred any losses. But the big winner has been the Developers and the Government . I'm not saying that will always be the case. Expensive flats in London I think will show big loses , but any PE company getting involved don't have to lend with the same Criteria they might not lend as much or on certain kinds of property. 

16 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

It's possible that the government earns a return on HTB,

So no figures , I have not got any either but seeing the way new builds have gone up since HTB came in I cannot see where they have lost. 

18 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

2) The government spends more on HTB. It earns a return on the earlier houses in which it has equity. But this is outweighed by the increased spending on HTB required. It only continues to gain on the earlier houses as long as  it continues to increase the amount of spending on HTB. It's like a ponzi scheme, but as well as finding new suckers, the government today relies on increased spending in the future (i.e. the government is its own sucker).

 The more the Government spends the more they get back up till now. Have never said it will always be the case. 

[Kosmin]

8 minutes ago, Insane said:

But up till now it has been viable. If the Banks had lent 95% on all those HTB properties they would not have incurred any losses.

This is incorrect. Prices increased because the government implemented HTB. Prices will probably fall as a result of the end of HTB.

If it were the case that banks could simply lend more without taking on excessive risk and thereby push up prices, why didn't banks just lend 95%, or 7xsalary or whatever, at any time between 2008 and 2013 (when the government introduced HTB)? 

23 minutes ago, Insane said:

But the big winner has been the Developers and the Government .

You say the government has been a winner, but you haven't given any evidence and you haven't explained why they would want to stop the scheme if it was making them so much money.

32 minutes ago, Insane said:

So no figures , I have not got any either but seeing the way new builds have gone up since HTB came in I cannot see where they have lost. 

Even if we had all the relevant figures I don't think they would tell us if the scheme was going to be profit-making, as we don't know how much the houses are worth and how much they will be worth. This uncertainty is faced by mortgage lenders as well, but to a much more limited extent - they don't take big risks like HTB, so they have a much better idea of the risk and return of mortgage lending in the long term.

I have explained the government loses by rising prices and by falling prices. The interest payments it receives might outweigh these losses. I don't know. Maybe enough borrowers will default to put a dent in these returns.

[captainb]

19 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

This is incorrect. Prices increased because the government implemented HTB. Prices will probably fall as a result of the end of HTB.

If it were the case that banks could simply lend more without taking on excessive risk and thereby push up prices, why didn't banks just lend 95%, or 7xsalary or whatever, at any time between 2008 and 2013 (when the government introduced HTB)? 

You say the government has been a winner, but you haven't given any evidence and you haven't explained why they would want to stop the scheme if it was making them so much money.

Even if we had all the relevant figures I don't think they would tell us if the scheme was going to be profit-making, as we don't know how much the houses are worth and how much they will be worth. This uncertainty is faced by mortgage lenders as well, but to a much more limited extent - they don't take big risks like HTB, so they have a much better idea of the risk and return of mortgage lending in the long term.

I have explained the government loses by rising prices and by falling prices. The interest payments it receives might outweigh these losses. I don't know. Maybe enough borrowers will default to put a dent in these returns.

It's not because 95% mortgages or 7c earnings are unprofitable. Banks are limited by regulation on multiples they can lend at and risk. 95% mortgages are available but they carry a large cost of capital because of said regulations and they simply can't lend at 7x.

If the regulations were not in place, you could easily raise capital to lend out on residential at 7 or 8x earnings and at 95%..

The way around this is for the bank to purchase the property then rent out to someone paying the equivalent of a 7x mortgage (in terms of repayment as % of salary).

Which is exactly what Lloyds the most UK focused high street bank has started to do... 

Edited October 27, 2021 by captainb

[Kosmin]

10 minutes ago, captainb said:

It's not because 95% mortgages or 7c earnings are unprofitable. Banks are limited by regulation on multiples they can lend at and risk. 95% mortgages are available but they carry a large cost of capital because of said regulations and they simply can't lend at 7x.

It's a combination of the higher risk and regulations. I think the regulations exist in part due to the higher risk. What are the other reasons for regulations restricting mortgage lending? Are the regulators trying to suppress house prices?

Didn't 95% mortgages and 7xearnings mortgages prove to be very unprofitable in 2008?

16 minutes ago, captainb said:

If the regulations were not in place, you could easily raise capital to lend out on residential at 7 or 8x earnings and at 95%.

If this were the case, wouldn't it have been easier for the government to simply remove these regulations instead of implementing HTB?

 

[Insane]

35 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

This is incorrect. Prices increased because the government implemented HTB. Prices will probably fall as a result of the end of HTB.

No it is correct. HTB allowed people to borrow more money hence prices went up , does not matter where the money came from the more money the more the prices increased. 

37 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

If it were the case that banks could simply lend more without taking on excessive risk and thereby push up prices, why didn't banks just lend 95%, or 7xsalary or whatever, at any time between 2008 and 2013 (when the government introduced HTB)? 

I did not say there was not more risk by lending more of course the risk increases, however if the banks had leant more instead of it coming from HTB they would not have lost the proof is in what has happened. The banks not wanting to take the risks and what has unfolded are two different things. 

40 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

You say the government has been a winner, but you haven't given any evidence and you haven't explained why they would want to stop the scheme if it was making them so much money.

Prices of new builds almost doubling in the last 7 to 8 years therefore the Government's % increases. Quite simple , as I said I have not got figures but I can see how much the new builds that were first bought with HTB sell for now. What figures do you have ? I already asked you this your answer was " I THINK "

44 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

Even if we had all the relevant figures I don't think they would tell us if the scheme was going to be profit-making, as we don't know how much the houses are worth and how much they will be worth. This uncertainty is faced by mortgage lenders as well, but to a much more limited extent - they don't take big risks like HTB, so they have a much better idea of the risk and return of mortgage lending in the long term.

So if we had all the figures we could not tell if there was a profit or a loss ? LOL. Do you lecture on economics ? 

You do talk some S--t sometimes don't you. Banks still lend at 95% to people. 

47 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

I have explained the government loses by rising prices and by falling prices. The interest payments it receives might outweigh these losses. I don't know. Maybe enough borrowers will default to put a dent in these returns.

No you explained nothing about how the Government would lose if prices rise as when prices rise the Governments stake rises so it would be impossible to take a lose. What you explained was gogled goo. 

[Kosmin]

14 minutes ago, Insane said:

No it is correct. HTB allowed people to borrow more money hence prices went up , does not matter where the money came from the more money the more the prices increased. 

It's important that the money came from the government. The government literally said to lenders if a loan isn't commercially viable we will lend 20% of it, we will bear the risk before you do. It was bullish for the property market precisely because it was the government trying to prevent prices from falling and signaling this to the market. It wouldn't have been possible for the private sector to do this and they don't have an incentive to try to do so.

17 minutes ago, Insane said:

I did not say there was not more risk by lending more of course the risk increases, however if the banks had leant more instead of it coming from HTB they would not have lost the proof is in what has happened.

They need to do more than just not make losses. They need to earn returns high enough to compensate for risk. 

23 minutes ago, Insane said:

So if we had all the figures we could not tell if there was a profit or a loss ?

That's correct. If you lend someone money over 25 years with own 20% of the house which is collateral, you don't know if you will make a gain or a loss until the end of the 25 years, unless the borrower repays early. Future repayments are uncertain and the future value of the properties are uncertain.

 

29 minutes ago, Insane said:

No you explained nothing about how the Government would lose if prices rise as when prices rise the Governments stake rises so it would be impossible to take a lose.  

Consider your example: "HTB was 20% here in Essex when it started in 2012 some of the places bought on it have nearly doubled in value since so the Government lending 20% on a £250k house i.e. £50k now see that stake at £100k"

 

If they removed HTB could people afford to buy for £500k? If not, the government can continue spending more and more on HTB, Their stake increased from £50k to £100k, but only if they support that or other sales by spending £100k, or more. That clearly does not result in a gain. Every apparent gain relies on simultaneous higher investments.

Or they can end HTB and prices will fall.

I don't know if it will be loss making for the government. 

You still haven't explained why the government would consider ending HTB if it makes money!

[Insane]

1 minute ago, Kosmin said:

It's important that the money came from the government. The government literally said to lenders if a loan isn't commercially viable we will lend 20% of it, we will bear the risk before you do. It was bullish for the property market precisely because it was the government trying to prevent prices from falling and signaling this to the market. It wouldn't have been possible for the private sector to do this and they don't have an incentive to try to do so.

Rubbish Rubbish and again Rubbish , prior to Liar loans being stopped the money came from the Banks. As with HTB the more money the more prices went up. Does not matter where it came from but no matter how many times your told this it does not sink in does it. 

7 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

They need to do more than just not make losses. They need to earn returns high enough to compensate for risk. 

They do. 

7 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

That's correct. If you lend someone money over 25 years with own 20% of the house which is collateral, you don't know if you will make a gain or a loss until the end of the 25 years, unless the borrower repays early. Future repayments are uncertain and the future value of the properties are uncertain.

Lol. The whole future is uncertain only Mistic Meg knows what is in store for us. 

You can make a loss in the first year if the buyer defaults and the property is sold at a loss. You can see a gain (maybe only on paper) but banking is all about paper or screens by keeping an eye on your stake Banks do it all the time. 

11 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

If they removed HTB could people afford to buy for £500k? If not, the government can continue spending more and more on HTB, Their stake increased from £50k to £100k, but only if they support that or other sales by spending £100k, or more. That clearly does not result in a gain. Every apparent gain relies on simultaneous higher investments.

Wrong again , the Government have made a gain on the house that has doubled to £500k , if they take another £100,000 of Tax Payers money and invest it in another property they still have a gain on their first stake investing more money does not wipe that gain out as the new money is a separate investment and you have not shown any loss anywhere. Not saying there will never be losses ( I think there will be) but the way you describe the Government losing by property they have invested in rising is wrong. 

16 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

Or they can end HTB and prices will fall.

Could well happen I have never said it would not happen what I said was I heard a Rumour only a Rumour that PE companies were looking to get involved if and when the Government do stop HTB. 

17 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

I don't know if it will be loss making for the government. 

As I said I don't know how many times we don't know but up till now the Government have made not lost money on HTB. 

18 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

You still haven't explained why the government would consider ending HTB if it makes money!

You never asked

But since you have why is it for me to explain why they would end HTB If it makes money ? The Government have not explained why they are ending it so I am unable to pass their reasons on to you. All I do know is the Current HTB scheme runs until 2023 so far there has been no announcement that it will be extended or a new scheme rolled out. 

To sum up I will repeat I heard a Rumour that if and when the Government do pull the rug on HTB there are PE companies looking at taking it up afterwards , that is all that is it . Can you understand that ? 

[Kosmin]

8 minutes ago, Insane said:

Rubbish Rubbish and again Rubbish , prior to Liar loans being stopped the money came from the Banks. As with HTB the more money the more prices went up. Does not matter where it came from but no matter how many times your told this it does not sink in does it. 

Why do you think liar loans stopped?

Yes, prices were increasing whilst it was easy to borrow large multiples. But why did that stop? Why didn't banks carry on? Or why didn't they start again several years later?

The credit crunch and house price falls weakened sentiment. It took HTB to change that. 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Kosmin

[Insane]

7 hours ago, Kosmin said:

Why do you think liar loans stopped?

Yes, prices were increasing whilst it was easy to borrow large multiples. But why did that stop? Why didn't banks carry on? Or why didn't they start again several years later?

The credit crunch and house price falls weakened sentiment. It took HTB to change that. 

What has that got to do with PE companies getting involved when the Government withdraws form HTB ? 

[iamnumerate]

11 hours ago, MattW said:

I manage! Currently living in my fifth flat since flying the nest nearly 18 years ago. Mind, the one I'm currently in has a distinct lack of soundproofing between the floors. It's a council flat built in 1969. 

I'd like to move but all I can afford is...another flat! 

I am sorry to hear that, in London suburbs flats - sorry luxury apartments - are often more expensive than semi detatched houses.  If I had to choose between a flat with a two minute walk to the station and a house with a 20 minute walk I would chose the house

[shlomo]

19 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

I am sorry to hear that, in London suburbs flats - sorry luxury apartments - are often more expensive than semi detatched houses.  If I had to choose between a flat with a two minute walk to the station and a house with a 20 minute walk I would chose the house

You might choose different options at different age groups, if you were young free and single or gay or metrosexual then the flat would be more in keeping you with your lifestyle 

[Kosmin]

4 hours ago, Insane said:

What has that got to do with PE companies getting involved when the Government withdraws form HTB ? 

The private sector wasn't willing to lend to people with small deposits. The government introduced a scheme to lend to them. PE companies didn't get involved with a scheme like HTB before the government introduced it, so why would they contemplate getting involved after HTB ends?

[Insane]

6 hours ago, Kosmin said:

The private sector wasn't willing to lend to people with small deposits

Yes they were in fact they still are 95% mortgages still exist. You have already been told this , you do go around in circles don't you. 

 

6 hours ago, Kosmin said:

so why would they contemplate getting involved after HTB ends?

Quite simple because they see a profit to be made. 

[Riedquat]

On 24/10/2021 at 21:06, Insane said:

Well it is just over 100 foot long. When I moved in it was £1,000 just to get all the overgrown plants, trees and shrubs cleared. Then my part of the fences was £2,000. A new patio , path and a run of concrete at the bottom was £4,000. To shingle and lay a lawn was £2,500 , then about another £1,000 to buy a lawn mower a few pots and some plants. 

On top of that the water bill went up by £15 a month to keep the new lawn green in this summer , I cut it myself but if I wanted to get someone in that would be £20+ each time. 

Should point out that that's not typical garden maintenance costs though. Much of those are one-off (or at least very infrequent) expenses, some of which could be reduced if you're prepared to do the work yourself (depends on the size of the trees of course) and sound like they were at least partially down to making up for years of lack of maintenance.

£1000 for a mower and some pots?! (mind you I've got far less lawn to mow and a cheap £100-odd thing does the job fine). Only time I've ever watered the lawn was when I put a bit of new seed down, although living on the edge of the Peak District I'm not usually lacking for rain. A few water butts gets the garden through dry patches.

But gardening is one of those things where you can maintain something basic for not much but can also keep spending with no end if you get carried away.