Jump to content

Single woman buys narrowboat to get on property ladder


David Mack

Featured Posts

20 minutes ago, matty40s said:

I didnt assume anything, I gave a breakdown of my costs and rough guide to other expenses, I am fully aware that others may or may not have cars, dont pay TV licences, tax or other items.

I think the confusion is that you seemed to imply that the cost of car tax is one reason why boat life isn't cheap.  It looked like you were claiming that it's a cost which all boaters face.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I accept that a CC non moving boat life could be very cheap if you like to sit there with no TV, eating value beans on Tesco value bread with no butter, drinking lukewarm stove kettle tea with no milk, placing a maximum of 2 nuggets of coal a day on your stove. Moving rarely and praying for sunshine so your solar panel gives you another evening with your single LED bulb going.

...and yes, people like this exist, but that's pretty much all they do.

 

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alan_fincher said:

 

When I looked it over 9 years ago, there was a lot of the original boat remaining.

 

However what subsequently emerged is that the bit I couldn't see, (i.e. the bit below water) was a potential colander on an epic scale.

If some very major and expensive steelwork has been carried out since Braunston marina sold Malvern for a very knock down price, then she has maybe got herself a boat with a lot of potential.  If no such steelwork has been carried out, then at the least I would be checking on a regular basis that the bilge pump works!

Is this the same Malvern? Apparently she bought it from a friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, wandering snail said:

Is this the same Malvern? Apparently she bought it from a friend.

 

 

Yes actually I'd heard this too.  So the mystery is, dId the friend carry out all the remedial work or just flog it on to her for a quick £10k (or whatever) profit?

 

Nobody seems to know. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, matty40s said:

I accept that a CC non moving boat life could be very cheap if you like to sit there with no TV, eating value beans on Tesco value bread with no butter, drinking lukewarm stove kettle tea with no milk, placing a maximum of 2 nuggets of coal a day on your stove. Moving rarely and praying for sunshine so your solar panel gives you another evening with your single LED bulb going.

...and yes, people like this exist, but that's pretty much all they do.

 

I accept that too, but I also accept that in many areas boat life is also much cheaper than house/flat life in a modest boat with a reasonable level of comfort, eating a good diet, keeping warm and going out as much as you want, while meeting the cc guidelines. 

 

As you point out it's possible to go even cheaper than my description because boaters have far more control over their expenditure due to far lower fixed costs.  When your rent + bills is already way over £1000pcm then it's not hard to live afloat for cheaper than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

I accept that too, but I also accept that in many areas boat life is also much cheaper than house/flat life in a modest boat with a reasonable level of comfort, eating a good diet, keeping warm and going out as much as you want, while meeting the cc guidelines. 

 

As you point out it's possible to go even cheaper than my description because boaters have far more control over their expenditure due to far lower fixed costs.  When your rent + bills is already way over £1000pcm then it's not hard to live afloat for cheaper than that.

 

 

I think once you factor in that houses tend to rise in value over the long term at at least £1,000 a month while boats (with some notable exceptions) tend to stay steady or drift down in value as they age, its hard to make the case that boat living is all that much cheaper than housing in the long term. 

 

If we are to compare boat living with renting a house, I think we should use boat renting prices as a comparison. Or at least the cost of renting the money to buy the boat! 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

I think once you factor in that houses tend to rise in value over the long term at at least £1,000 a month while boats (with some notable exceptions) tend to stay steady or drift down in value as they age, its hard to make the case that boat living is all that much cheaper than housing in the long term. 

 

If we are to compare boat living with renting a house, I think we should use boat renting prices as a comparison. Or at least the cost of renting the money to buy the boat! 

 

 

Not entirely fair, the vast majority of those in the circumstances discussed are unable to get a mortgage, so must rent, but are able to buy a relatively cheap boat.  The lady in the youtube videos is one of those so it's only reasonable to make that specific comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Not entirely fair, the vast majority of those in the circumstances discussed are unable to get a mortgage, so must rent, but are able to buy a relatively cheap boat.  The lady in the youtube videos is one of those so it's only reasonable to make that specific comparison.

 

Even so, the numbers remain the same. If she is not credit-worthy enough to get a mortgage, this is a reason to have studied harder at skool and got a better paying job, innit! 

  • Horror 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Even so, the numbers remain the same. If she is not credit-worthy enough to get a mortgage, this is a reason to have studied harder at skool and got a better paying job, innit! 

You devil, you know what that comment will produce.  Landlord, exploiter, shark, parasite etc.  Do you do it on purpose to raise an argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

Nothing wrong with providing decent housing for those who cannot afford to buy a house, flat, camper van or boat. Landlords are saints for putting up with regulations and bad tenants.

 

Now you're at it too! 

 

Some are, plenty aren't. 

 

As a child my mum and dad used to sometimes point out to us people in dire straights from their station in life, and impress upon us kids how to avoid that happening to us. Broadly, pay attention at skool, pass your exams, behave honestly and honourably, be reliable especially at work, be diligent and trustworthy. Struggle to buy and never rent. 

 

I ignored all that, obviously. 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think there is everything wrong when a family, who CAN afford to buy a first home, are disadvantaged by the fact that a buy to let landlord is going to be a more attractive deal for the estate agent and the lenders. 

 

The BTL will get the property and push out the first time buyer.

 

This is what happens in the real world. It is obvious. It is not about people who are unable to afford homes being "given" rental property it is about the market being biased towards BTL. 

 

This is not going to lead to positive outcomes over time. People need somewhere to live. It isn't an optional thing. People generally die fast with no shelter and have a shit time. 

 

I've always had enough money and steered clear of this because it is completely wrong. Similarly we lived in huge houses and were loaded when I was a kid but did either of the parents consider buying and renting property to get extra money? No. Because it is basically wrong to deprive others of the right to (eventually) own a home by skewing the market. 

 

Council owned homes are available for those who can demonstrate need and local connections.

 

I do know the whole thing is screwed but some controls are needed otherwise you are going to get bad things happening. It's the logical outcome of depriving people of a basic right. 

 

Edited by magnetman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Because it is basically wrong to deprive others of the right to (eventually) own a home by skewing the market. 

 

You capitalist pig! 

 

No-one has a right to own a home. No-one should be forced to buy one as the only way to get shelter. Renting should always be available to those who want to, even though you appear to think they should be prevented from renting as it will prevent someone else from buying. 

 

the bottom line is there is a number of properties being used for accommodation. The ratio of rental to owner occupied shifts a little with time and fashion but the details of the right to occupy (rent or own) make no difference to the amount of accommodation out there for the population to live in.

 

 

  • Greenie 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

You capitalist pig! 

 

No-one has a right to own a home. No-one should be forced to buy one as the only way to get shelter. Renting should always be available to those who want to, even though you appear to think they should be prevented from renting as it will prevent someone else from buying. 

 

the bottom line is there is a number of properties being used for accommodation. The ratio of rental to owner occupied shifts a little with time and fashion but the details of the right to occupy (rent or own) make no difference to the amount of accommodation out there for the population to live in.

 

 

By all means have rental properties for people who do want to rent. No problem.

It is when the BTL landlord parasite is buying up the first-time homes which people DO WANT TO BUY and CAN AFFORD TO BUY that you get problems. 

 

This is what happens. Okay so you get more expensive rental for people with loads of money (I have never owned property but do rent an expensive mooring) but the BTL thing is in large part about "starter homes" and it is categorically preventing people who would like to eventually own a home from getting their foot in the door, so to speak. 

 

This is what is happening. 

 

 

 

 

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I personally think there is everything wrong when a family, who CAN afford to buy a first home, are disadvantaged by the fact that a buy to let landlord is going to be a more attractive deal for the estate agent and the lenders. 

 

The BTL will get the property and push out the first time buyer.

 

This is what happens in the real world. It is obvious. It is not about people who are unable to afford homes being "given" rental property it is about the market being biased towards BTL. 

 

This is not going to lead to positive outcomes over time. People need somewhere to live. It isn't an optional thing. People generally die fast with no shelter and have a shit time. 

 

I've always had enough money and steered clear of this because it is completely wrong. Similarly we lived in huge houses and were loaded when I was a kid but did either of the parents consider buying and renting property to get extra money? No. Because it is basically wrong to deprive others of the right to (eventually) own a home by skewing the market. 

 

Council owned homes are available for those who can demonstrate need and local connections.

 

I do know the whole thing is screwed but some controls are needed otherwise you are going to get bad things happening. It's the logical outcome of depriving people of a basic right. 

 

Arrant rubbish.

Buy to let landlords usually pay more for property because they have to maintain it despite the vandalism of the tenants. No landlord deprives anyone of a house, its not their aim in life. The housing stock in the UK would be back to the slum clearances if the low income owners did what they did in the 1950s, live like rabbits in a hutch and do no maintenance.

A landlord has to maintain to an acceptable standard or he is quickly deprived of the income from the property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I personally think there is everything wrong when a family, who CAN afford to buy a first home, are disadvantaged by the fact that a buy to let landlord is going to be a more attractive deal for the estate agent and the lenders. 

 

The BTL will get the property and push out the first time buyer.

 

 

 

 

Could you explain why this should be the case? I find it surprising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back when I left school in 1954 the thought of buying a house never existed for most people, and this continued to be general probably until the Thatcher years and the sale of Council housing. Any 'Right' to be able to buy a house is quite a modern thing.

 

Tam

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tam & Di said:

Back when I left school in 1954 the thought of buying a house never existed for most people, and this continued to be general probably until the Thatcher years and the sale of Council housing. Any 'Right' to be able to buy a house is quite a modern thing.

 

Tam

 

I think my parents bought their (new) house in 1963 on the wages of a milkman and a newly qualified teacher, so hardly a rare occurrence -- and it cost about £2000... 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Athy said:

Could you explain why this should be the case? I find it surprising.

 

A lender will have to look at the risk. A BTL buyer, who already owns their own home and does not have the stress of providing a dwelling for his family, is surely going to be a lower risk than a first time buyer. 

 

As long as the rental market is buoyant then the more properties that get sold into BTL the lower the risk to the lender. Someone will always be renting the place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

I think my parents bought their (new) house in 1963 on the wages of a milkman and a newly qualified teacher, so hardly a rare occurrence -- and it cost about £2000... 😉

 You are talking of a couple who were both at work - not such a common thing back then, certainly not among 'working class' people. My father did manage to buy a 99 year lease on a newbuild house immediately before WW2, but that was because he had a massive (at the time) £500 football pool win.

 

As a park keeper with a wife and 5 children he'd never have been able to do that otherwise

 

Tam

 

 

Edited by Tam & Di
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

A lender will have to look at the risk. A BTL buyer, who already owns their own home and does not have the stress of providing a dwelling for his family, is surely going to be a lower risk than a first time buyer. 

 

As long as the rental market is buoyant then the more properties that get sold into BTL the lower the risk to the lender. Someone will always be renting the place. 

 

 

This only holds good while there are hoards of amoral renters about, all trying to out-compete the poor first time buyers for the right to occupy. ]

 

They should be ashamed of themselves, depriving deserving would-be-buyers from the chance to own their own home...

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

A lender will have to look at the risk. A BTL buyer, who already owns their own home and does not have the stress of providing a dwelling for his family, is surely going to be a lower risk than a first time buyer. 

 

As long as the rental market is buoyant then the more properties that get sold into BTL the lower the risk to the lender. Someone will always be renting the place. 

I still don't see it. A  young professional couple with steady jobs, as Mrs. Athy and I were when we bought our first house, will be viewed as a good risk by mortgage lenders. A landlord who may already be paying multiple mortgages may appear less secure.

   W e're in the BTL game in a small way,, with just two rental properties, and when we bought them we found the estate agent most accommodating, but I have always thought that this was because we didn't need mortgages to buy them, not because we wanted to rent them out rather than live in them.

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

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.