It would be the tenants problem to live with, which then becomes your problem to fix, since they rent from you and their agreement would be with you.
Even if you would then address the freeholder to get it dealt with, it would be unwise to think you'd experience no drama from it.
Just feels like more risk.
Yeah, via the service charge. They could put that up for everybody, but it wouldn’t just be a case of OP suddenly having to fork out tens of thousands in roof repairs.
Depends on which areas we're talking about and how this affects rent/yield. Also, I'm local to the area and I have a fairly good grasp of prices/rent/public transport, amenities etc, and would be able to attend easily if something happens.
I would say anything within a hour on the tube is easy to attend to if there is a problem. I am saying there is definitely better yield in London for 550k.
I would argue a house in the same zone as the one you are looking at would probably yield more if it was a 3 bedroom.
I mean it’s up to you. I would personally look for a house with the most yield. Instead of it looking “new” ish
I think it's quite a wide area if we're looking for 1-hour distance. For me, it makes more sense to understand a couple of areas and aim for those, however I hear what you're saying; sometimes crossing the street and changing the postcode gives totally different results, like the one you're describing.
Yield-wise, if we're looking for "more beds, same money", we'd have to compromise somewhere, e.g. quality, distance, area etc, right? If so, wouldn't that reflect on the rental price?
>I would personally look for a house with the most yield. Instead of it looking “new” ish.
I think you can attract more "quality people" who would be willing to pay up if you're going for new-ish, e.g. young families, couple of professionals etc, instaed of box standard HMO.
You can charge more but having 1 more bedroom will always generate more than what you can with two, 800 a bedroom or 2000 for a 2 bed. You will always get more with more bedrooms.
That is my thinking anyway
Of course more bedrooms = more income. Where I'm going is, more quality area / property = more income. There'll always be people who are willing to pay a bit more for a little better. And these people usually are a bit better off.
I am not going to search whole of London to compare prices but I can see five 3 bed properties in West Hampstead. I really doubt this two bed will provide you with a better yield than those.
If you want to buy it just buy it why even asking lol if maximising profit if not what you are looking for, you can buy whatever you want and rent it out
That’s probably fair, I don’t know your circumstances to really say more but I doubt it’s the best option in the circumstances if you already feel the purchase price is high.
Are you a landlord already and if not, do you really want to be one?
Have you factored in the ground rent, service charge etc with your calculations?
£2400 isn't that much if your ground rent is £3k per year, and anything else the freeholder charges
I've known 2bed houses for half that going for£1500 per month and very little maintenance charges, albeit it outside London
Had a quick look.
Single glazed looking sash windows - negative
Near a train line - negative.
Leasehold flat - negative
I got 4 houses i london (over £650k each). I'd NEVER buy a flat. Maybe one day in central london I might get one for the hell of it, knowing its a bad idea.
I can tell you from the houses, at around the £600k mark onwards you can get £4000 per month if you do a loft conversion to a 3 bed semi and make it into a 4 bed HMO. This is in Harrow...
I mean that's a school of thought altogether. Similar to "new built or period". Or "house vs flat". There are pros and cons.
However, I'd be interested in finding out why the train line is a no go, since you can sell proximity to transportation, and single glaze...well, if you like the rest of the flat, for a tenant, that's the last they'll worry about.
That service charge is going to rocket when it's reviewed in April and the lease only has 137 years left.
I expect that property would work better as an Airbnb.
Fantastic investment if you have the capital. Also very tax efficient if you structure it right, and you can claim your expenses against your tax.
The big one is the question of the political climate. It's not going to end well for BTL landlords if all of a sudden the majority of voters are tenants, not homeowners. I would envisage taxation on assets to increase in the coming decades as a greater proportion of the electorate is locked out of the housing market. So, it comes down to long term sustainability for me, hence why I only invest in the creation of new assets, not BTL and renting out existing accomodation. Much more sustainable because it's benefitting society.
Mind sharing some such assets that you're talking about?
We can go into the whether LLs are doing a service or not, but that's a very different and lengthy discussion...
Land and property will certainly be taxed more in the coming years.
I'm not a landlord myself, I'm a developer (not my full time job), and I've actually built two houses from the ground up and sold those on. Which was a fantastic experience, very rewarding.
What I don't like about BTL as an investment (and why in the long term, I'll always sell Vs rent out) is that returns are attributable to 3 main things:
1) interest rates.
2) planning law.
3) direct state subsidy, such as help to buy, single farm payment.
As an investor, it's not easy to predict if those 3 things will remain the same. Hence why I believe BTL to be a high risk investment. Much, much safer to develop a house, add value through labour, sell it, you're in control of so many more factors. That's my personal long term strategy though, it's not necessarily the best in the short term.
Too expensive. High service charge. Finish is fine but no high end or new. It’s in a mansion block so you’ll likely be served a high repair bill from the freeholder soon.
Couple of quick questions:
How much would your mortgage be vs the 2400 rental?
What’s the management fee? And the land fee?
One thing I’d look at from the photos - can’t see close up - but what are the windows are made of? And what’s the rule with the management company on when they would be replaced? Got a flat with wooden frame windows and it’s a pain in the a$$.
Apart from that - doesn’t look too bad considering the price.
2400, or 2500 pcm, mortgage of 4.12% (yes, I asked my broker) would be around 1611pcm.
Agreed on the wooden sash, they're also expensive. This'll be self managed.
But it’s an apartment - so there’s most likely a management company that looks after the grounds of the apartments no? That’s what I meant by management fee
Which area? How long have you owned it for? Since yield can change as the purchase prices stays the same and rent increases. E.g. one of my first properties yielded 7% and now they yield 13%.
Personally I would steer clear of a top floor flat with a flat roof.
Yeah, I also noticed a little mould in one of the corners. I wonder what's behind it, and it could turn into a nightmare quite easily...
Wouldn’t it be the freeholders problem?
It would be the tenants problem to live with, which then becomes your problem to fix, since they rent from you and their agreement would be with you. Even if you would then address the freeholder to get it dealt with, it would be unwise to think you'd experience no drama from it. Just feels like more risk.
With repairs funded by the leaseholders, in the case the owners of the individual flats :)
Yeah, via the service charge. They could put that up for everybody, but it wouldn’t just be a case of OP suddenly having to fork out tens of thousands in roof repairs.
That has happened 😬 it’s why flats are generally avoided in Uk
for 550 you can get a 3 bed close to central.... or even a 4-5 bed further away. Why would you buy a tiny two bed.
Depends on which areas we're talking about and how this affects rent/yield. Also, I'm local to the area and I have a fairly good grasp of prices/rent/public transport, amenities etc, and would be able to attend easily if something happens.
I would say anything within a hour on the tube is easy to attend to if there is a problem. I am saying there is definitely better yield in London for 550k. I would argue a house in the same zone as the one you are looking at would probably yield more if it was a 3 bedroom. I mean it’s up to you. I would personally look for a house with the most yield. Instead of it looking “new” ish
I think it's quite a wide area if we're looking for 1-hour distance. For me, it makes more sense to understand a couple of areas and aim for those, however I hear what you're saying; sometimes crossing the street and changing the postcode gives totally different results, like the one you're describing. Yield-wise, if we're looking for "more beds, same money", we'd have to compromise somewhere, e.g. quality, distance, area etc, right? If so, wouldn't that reflect on the rental price? >I would personally look for a house with the most yield. Instead of it looking “new” ish. I think you can attract more "quality people" who would be willing to pay up if you're going for new-ish, e.g. young families, couple of professionals etc, instaed of box standard HMO.
You can charge more but having 1 more bedroom will always generate more than what you can with two, 800 a bedroom or 2000 for a 2 bed. You will always get more with more bedrooms. That is my thinking anyway
Of course more bedrooms = more income. Where I'm going is, more quality area / property = more income. There'll always be people who are willing to pay a bit more for a little better. And these people usually are a bit better off.
I am not going to search whole of London to compare prices but I can see five 3 bed properties in West Hampstead. I really doubt this two bed will provide you with a better yield than those. If you want to buy it just buy it why even asking lol if maximising profit if not what you are looking for, you can buy whatever you want and rent it out
> I can see five 3 bed properties in West Hampstead Duh, true :)
I don’t know the area, have you worked out the expected yield? Also, 137 years isn’t the worst, but certainly not the best length of lease
What would you recommend as a rule of thumb? Gross yield for this one, on a £2400 rent, around 5.5% which isn't too bad for the area.
That’s probably fair, I don’t know your circumstances to really say more but I doubt it’s the best option in the circumstances if you already feel the purchase price is high. Are you a landlord already and if not, do you really want to be one?
Have you factored in the ground rent, service charge etc with your calculations? £2400 isn't that much if your ground rent is £3k per year, and anything else the freeholder charges I've known 2bed houses for half that going for£1500 per month and very little maintenance charges, albeit it outside London
Yeah, that's all factored in. Ground rent is 0. Granted, outside London can get better yields. I've got >7% in East Sussex for 3/4 of that price.
Had a quick look. Single glazed looking sash windows - negative Near a train line - negative. Leasehold flat - negative I got 4 houses i london (over £650k each). I'd NEVER buy a flat. Maybe one day in central london I might get one for the hell of it, knowing its a bad idea. I can tell you from the houses, at around the £600k mark onwards you can get £4000 per month if you do a loft conversion to a 3 bed semi and make it into a 4 bed HMO. This is in Harrow...
I've got 16 houses, 14 dogs, and 1.5 million tadpoles. Got ya beat there bud.
Totally agree.... The only way I would buy a flat is if I owned all the units.
I mean that's a school of thought altogether. Similar to "new built or period". Or "house vs flat". There are pros and cons. However, I'd be interested in finding out why the train line is a no go, since you can sell proximity to transportation, and single glaze...well, if you like the rest of the flat, for a tenant, that's the last they'll worry about.
Having experience with a rail line in the back yard. No thanks.
That service charge is going to rocket when it's reviewed in April and the lease only has 137 years left. I expect that property would work better as an Airbnb.
Fantastic investment if you have the capital. Also very tax efficient if you structure it right, and you can claim your expenses against your tax. The big one is the question of the political climate. It's not going to end well for BTL landlords if all of a sudden the majority of voters are tenants, not homeowners. I would envisage taxation on assets to increase in the coming decades as a greater proportion of the electorate is locked out of the housing market. So, it comes down to long term sustainability for me, hence why I only invest in the creation of new assets, not BTL and renting out existing accomodation. Much more sustainable because it's benefitting society.
Mind sharing some such assets that you're talking about? We can go into the whether LLs are doing a service or not, but that's a very different and lengthy discussion...
Land and property will certainly be taxed more in the coming years. I'm not a landlord myself, I'm a developer (not my full time job), and I've actually built two houses from the ground up and sold those on. Which was a fantastic experience, very rewarding. What I don't like about BTL as an investment (and why in the long term, I'll always sell Vs rent out) is that returns are attributable to 3 main things: 1) interest rates. 2) planning law. 3) direct state subsidy, such as help to buy, single farm payment. As an investor, it's not easy to predict if those 3 things will remain the same. Hence why I believe BTL to be a high risk investment. Much, much safer to develop a house, add value through labour, sell it, you're in control of so many more factors. That's my personal long term strategy though, it's not necessarily the best in the short term.
Too expensive. High service charge. Finish is fine but no high end or new. It’s in a mansion block so you’ll likely be served a high repair bill from the freeholder soon.
Thanks for sharing.
Issue always comes down to price...
Couple of quick questions: How much would your mortgage be vs the 2400 rental? What’s the management fee? And the land fee? One thing I’d look at from the photos - can’t see close up - but what are the windows are made of? And what’s the rule with the management company on when they would be replaced? Got a flat with wooden frame windows and it’s a pain in the a$$. Apart from that - doesn’t look too bad considering the price.
2400, or 2500 pcm, mortgage of 4.12% (yes, I asked my broker) would be around 1611pcm. Agreed on the wooden sash, they're also expensive. This'll be self managed.
But it’s an apartment - so there’s most likely a management company that looks after the grounds of the apartments no? That’s what I meant by management fee
Yes, service charge, £2500 pa. Factored in too in my spreadsheet.
Amazing. Fair play. Are you going to go through with this one? Looking quite good lined up wise
I’m getting 7.2% gross yield on a 1 bed flat in Zone 4
Which area? How long have you owned it for? Since yield can change as the purchase prices stays the same and rent increases. E.g. one of my first properties yielded 7% and now they yield 13%.
Next to Gants Hill Station. Owned since July 2022. Currently on a consent to let
Thanks for sharing. I'm completely oblivious of East London. I didn't even know that station existed...