I'm looking for a home, with a budget of around 150,000£. With this money, I think I'll have to settle at an area outside of London. So far, Kent seems to be a reasonable choice.
However, apart from the legal and morgage costs, what concerns me is the travel cost. For example, a yearly ticket from Dartford to London takes about 1400£. And this doesn't include the amount required to travel by tube and bus inside London.
And if you live further from Dartford, then the cost of travelling to London will rise.
Many said that it's cheaper to live far from London. But economically speaking, is it really worthy to buy a home outside of London?
2006-10-02 05:05:38 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Business & Finance ➔ Renting & Real Estate
If i was in your situation i would purchase a house outside of London and rent it out to students.
The average rent for student would be round 60 to 70 a week depending on how long you would let the property for(10) months ideally. Certain property that i have stayed in, have been three bedrooms originally but the owner has turned it into five bedrooms. If you was to charge 70 a week for 5 students that would work out roughly to be £14,000 a year. You could also put in the contact that all bills are included in the rent but if they go over a certain amount (say £1500) over the contact period part of their despoit will be taken to cover this.
That means you would have two sources of income, plus student do not have to pay council tax.
Hope this helps
2006-10-02 05:21:41 · answer #1 · answered by Stephen J 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know your area or the prices of housing there but I do know that the cost of commuting and the extra time added you your work day can really get you down. If the price you can pay for a house is maximum for your budget you will also have to add the extra cost. Would it be possible to find a house or loft in London and pay a little bit more but come out ahead in the long run.
2006-10-02 05:11:56 · answer #2 · answered by Kenneth H 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A lot of this will depend on the lifestyle that you wish to adopt. If you plan to go out and about a lot then London would probably be the better option as you would be closer to the city centre for those late nights out. However, this may mean that you would be forced into a less desirable area of London.
The advantage of living in the far reaches of Kent means that you can probably afford a better property.
Good luck
2006-10-02 05:11:58 · answer #3 · answered by bumblingbeermonster 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is very expensive to live in London, all you will be able to afford with 150,000 is a rental in a crap neighborhood, oyster cards are fairly cheap considering it covers all of your travel needs within london, i would deffinately choose to live outside the city unless you can settle for a small place and do not mind living in a sub par neighborhood
2006-10-02 05:13:31 · answer #4 · answered by Michael L 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋