Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ketara wrote:
[
I'm sorry, but this is utter rubbish and reads like some Edwardian Scrooge caricature opinion.

'Landlords need to rent room, or else where would poor people live? On the street, dammit! Why aren't they more grateful!?'

You honestly think that if there were no landlords, that houses would be so cheap that anyone could buy one? Landlords owning stuff doesn't drive up the price of lumber, concrete, plumbing or wiring. Houses cost money to build regardless of the value of the land it sits on.

You underestimate how irresponsible some people can be. I've worked with people in a full time job that paid decently and they blew all of it every week, even though they had plenty of cash to spare because they chose to live six to a house and thus their rent payments were negligible. It wasn't "I can't afford rent" or "I can't afford a mortgage", it was "I want to own a nice car and party all weekend".

It would be wonderful if every person who was willing to be responsible could own their own home. I acknowledge that we're not there and there are things that could be done to rectify it - you mention AirBNB and it should be flat out banned. But even if it were so, you'd still have people renting for a variety of reasons, some good, some bad.

People also seem to be ignoring the underlying problems like wage stagnation and the artificial scarcity of housing driving up prices. I don't know what's common in other countries but in the US the majority of residential rental properties are multi unit buildings not single family homes. I wouldn't want to rent out my parents' house when they die, it's not even in the same state as me it would be a huge headache.

With multi unit buildings you could turn them into condos or co-ops if the tenants could afford it but even then their rents really wouldnt change much because the debt service, taxes and upkeep costs really wouldn't change.

More housing would help but its also extremely expensive. First, with zoning there's only certain places you can put multi unit housing and those places are usually already full of multi unit housing. If zoning permitted it somebody could buy a 10 unit building, pay to demolish it, then pay to construct a 20 unit building in its place. That would cost a lot and the rental rate for the rooms in the 20 unit building would be about the same as it was for the 10 unit building which is a disincentive. That also doesn't take into consideration the political pitfalls of gentrification, environmental impact and re-zoning. The actual landlords and owners have very little to do with creating the market they exist in.

Prestor Jon wrote:
With multi unit buildings you could turn them into condos or co-ops if the tenants could afford it but even then their rents really wouldnt change much because the debt service, taxes and upkeep costs really wouldn't change.

In theory, the overall costs at signing might not change- assuming the profit-skimming of a landlord is replaced with PMI by a lender to protect their investment- but the tenants would earn equity, which is important in facilitating upward mobility. Living ten years in one place and then walking away with a few tens of thousands of dollars versus walking away with nothing makes a huge difference.

In practice, the costs aren't the same anyways. I know what my mortgage costs me right now, and I know what it'll cost next year, and what it'll cost in ten years. The amortization schedule was locked in when I signed the paperwork. But in every rental property I've been in, when my one-year lease was coming to an end, it was time to renegotiate. And usually that meant the price going up, and I had to weigh whether the increased price was worth avoiding the hassle of relocating. That kind of long-term instability can be devastating to people already living on the margins.

Most people don't actively go seeking a landlord for long-term residence. They're an imposition; the wealthy leveraging their position of ownership within a closed system to siphon profit from the poor and middle class.

I think there would definitely still be a market for short term renting, say rarely more than a year.

But I absolutely agree that many people are stuck renting when they can't afford to buy a house, meaning that that money is completely lost vs accruing in property ownership.

 catbarf wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
With multi unit buildings you could turn them into condos or co-ops if the tenants could afford it but even then their rents really wouldnt change much because the debt service, taxes and upkeep costs really wouldn't change.

In theory, the overall costs at signing might not change- assuming the profit-skimming of a landlord is replaced with PMI by a lender to protect their investment- but the tenants would earn equity, which is important in facilitating upward mobility. Living ten years in one place and then walking away with a few tens of thousands of dollars versus walking away with nothing makes a huge difference.

In practice, the costs aren't the same anyways. I know what my mortgage costs me right now, and I know what it'll cost next year, and what it'll cost in ten years. The amortization schedule was locked in when I signed the paperwork. But in every rental property I've been in, when my one-year lease was coming to an end, it was time to renegotiate. And usually that meant the price going up, and I had to weigh whether the increased price was worth avoiding the hassle of relocating. That sucks.

Most people don't actively go seeking a landlord. They're an imposition; the wealthy leveraging their position of ownership to siphon profit from the poor and middle class.

I've rented before and I've had good landlords and bad landlords. I've worked for property management companies and some were good and some were shady. Typically, if every time your lease is up your rent increases with the next lease that's market driven because demand is going up so rates are going up. Rental rates are basically The Ultimatum Game. Vacancies always cost you money so driving tenants away with high rents or sitting on empty units waiting for somebody to be willing to pay the rent your asking for is never good. If the market rate has increased, whether because population is growing in your municipality driving up demand, or your building/complex has made capital improvements adding value, or the desirability of the location of your apartment has increased. Again, bad landlords certainly exist but a rental property without renters is just a colossal expense.

Equity is always good but if you're only dealing with 10 years or less you are unlikely to see a lot of growth in it. It will depend upon the terms of the loan and the size of the down payment but after only 10 years or less you'd have barely made a dent in the principal. People like to say the old adage of homes appreciate at 3% a year but recent financial upheavals have really slowed that down. Our house has appreciated 20% from when we bought 20 years ago and if we sold it tomorrow for its current assessed value our profit would be less than what we paid for the house. Obviously that's a lot better than renting and having nothing but its not enough of a windfall to get us another house without considerably downsizing or moving a fair distance away.

Providing housing for people is just as exploitative as providing any other good or service to people. Grocery stores aren't parasitically siphoning wealth from the poor and middle class by being exploitative middle men selling them food. The biggest problem is that wages aren't tied to productivity the way they should be which leaves a lot of people working hard for a long time without really accumulating any wealth. Most people aren't invested in the stock market and don't earn a high income so even when renting is cheaper than a mortgage it isn't enough of a savings to really pay off over time.

 John Prins wrote:

You honestly think that if there were no landlords, that houses would be so cheap that anyone could buy one? Landlords owning stuff doesn't drive up the price of lumber, concrete, plumbing or wiring. Houses cost money to build regardless of the value of the land it sits on.

How do you think all the boomers bought houses? Even thirty years ago, I could buy a one bed flat in south London for £25,000. Now? I'm looking at ten times that. And that's not because of inflation, or because building costs have gone up. The population growth figure isn't suddenly outstripping the new housing built to a vast degree either, is it? There is absolutely no material reason for the vast, vast increase in property price over the last fifty years.

The reason that my £25,000 flat now costs £250,000 is supply and demand. Simple as that. There are investors from around the world desperate to sink their money into the London property market, and local buy-to let landlords desperate to do the same. And why? Because it's a solid financial investment. The foreigners want somewhere to stash their cash (diversifying portfolios or laundering dirty money usually), and the locals want to leverage their credit to build an investment portfolio. Both want to see a commercial return well above inflation, and this is one of the best ways to do it.

Unfortunately, due to them all scrambling over each other to buy property, the market has completely overheated. Which brings in even MORE people with the same idea, because the values only go up. Not only does your renter pay your expenses, the ever-increasing value of the property adds a second line of investment value gain.

Unfortunately, this means that all those without properties and forced into long term renting get to pay ever larger sums; sums which mean they struggle to scrape together a large enough deposit to buy their own. Instead, the economic value and output of three out of their five days a week of work goes into the landlord's long term investment plan. It's one of the primary reasons behind the widening gap of the 'haves' and 'have nots' in the UK. It's less extreme in other parts of the country, but the same forces are still at play. The people who have sufficient money to play the property game accrue ever larger sums, and the people at the bottom find it ever-increasingly more challenging to break out from under their thumb.

This is the point at which the government should intervene. But they don't, because it causes ructions in the economy and there are a lot of very wealthy donors who own a lot of land. They'd rather fiddle and freeze the prices on bus fares for a year or something else equally petty.

 Ketara wrote:

 John Prins wrote:

You honestly think that if there were no landlords, that houses would be so cheap that anyone could buy one? Landlords owning stuff doesn't drive up the price of lumber, concrete, plumbing or wiring. Houses cost money to build regardless of the value of the land it sits on.

How do you think all the boomers bought houses? Even thirty years ago, I could buy a one bed flat in south London for £25,000. Now? I'm looking at ten times that. And that's not because of inflation, or because building costs have gone up. The population growth figure isn't suddenly outstripping the new housing built to a vast degree either, is it? There is absolutely no material reason for the vast, vast increase in property price over the last fifty years.

The reason that my £25,000 flat now costs £250,000 is supply and demand. Simple as that. There are investors from around the world desperate to sink their money into the London property market, and local buy-to let landlords desperate to do the same. And why? Because it's a solid financial investment. The foreigners want somewhere to stash their cash (diversifying portfolios or laundering dirty money usually), and the locals want to leverage their credit to build an investment portfolio. Both want to see a commercial return well above inflation, and this is one of the best ways to do it.

Unfortunately, due to them all scrambling over each other to buy property, the market has completely overheated. Which brings in even MORE people with the same idea, because the values only go up. Not only does your renter pay your expenses, the ever-increasing value of the property adds a second line of investment value gain.

Unfortunately, this means that all those without properties and forced into long term renting get to pay ever larger sums; sums which mean they struggle to scrape together a large enough deposit to buy their own. Instead, the economic value and output of three out of their five days a week of work goes into the landlord's long term investment plan. It's one of the primary reasons behind the widening gap of the 'haves' and 'have nots' in the UK.

You underestimate how irresponsible some people can be. I've worked with people in a full time job that paid decently and they blew all of it every week,

Sorry, what? They can afford rent, but not a mortgage? Even though mortgage payments are often lower than rent? How does that work? This entire line of reasoning is a logical fallacy from the get go. Either they're so dirt poor that they can't afford to pay for accommodation - in which case they can't afford a mortgage either. Or they can afford both. The only thing that stops them is the deposit and the credit check.

If I can afford £800 pcm in rent, I can afford £800 pcm in mortgage repayments. There's no scenario in which the £800 (or whatever figure) magically melts away when I change the purpose. Homeless people don't get given free houses for token rent that they could never afford on a mortgage. Not unless they're given a council house, and therein lies the nub of the issue.

The reason rental properties are such a good investment in London is because London doesn't have enough housing. Creating more housing in London is extremely difficult financially politically so the shortage continues, the market gets more skewed and the rich get richer. As long as rich donors exert more influence than voters the priorities of the politicians won't change and the city won't be governed in the best interests of its current and future residents. It's not because property owners and landlords colluded to triple the market rate for rent because they can't. If that was possible every city in the world would have the same situation. Low income housing has low margins, it will never give a decent ROI in an area with high property values like London, which is why only governments create it either directly or through subsidies. Higher wages and more housing will force the market to drop no matter what landlords and owners want, because they don't control the market.

 John Prins wrote:

You honestly think that if there were no landlords, that houses would be so cheap that anyone could buy one? Landlords owning stuff doesn't drive up the price of lumber, concrete, plumbing or wiring. Houses cost money to build regardless of the value of the land it sits on.

In Edinburgh, it was hellish for a while trying to buy any flats because the landlords would sweep in and offer £50-100k over the asking price, cash. Since cheaper/smaller "starter" properties are the best investment it made incredibly hard for first time buyers to get on the market.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
This reminds me....Lidl, possibly Aldi, have opened up near me. Same shopping bit as Sainsbury’s, just the other side of the carpark.

Gonna go check it out, as I’m in the mood for some fresh fruit. Might as well go to the cheaper shop, because fruit is fruit is fruit.

Also worth having a nose around in general.

Be careful with Aldi; you can save a few £ on fruit but then spend £50 on random stuff in the middle.
We tend to find the Aldi fruit doesn't last quite as long as the Tesco, so be careful when selecting it.

 Ketara wrote:


I'm not advocating this, but making the point that the drive of the well off to accrue still more wealth is the primary engine behind the ridiculous house prices you see today. It's not the minor population increase over the last thirty years, or that the land has become intrinsically more 'valuable'. It's supply and demand economics. Property bestows wealth and income, so everyone chases it. Remove the profit incentive, and the price will plummet. If the Government built more social housing for the poorest segment of long term renters, rental prices and mortgages would also plummet in turn (as they'd have to compete with council house rents).

No Government wants to do anything like this however, because the ripple on effects to the economy would be extreme.

The cynic in me says that no Government would do it because MP's are about 8x more likely to be landlords than the general public (at about 1/3rd of them). Unsurprisingly biased towards the Conservatives at about 40% of them making money from rentals.

There would be horrible effects across the board though, as lots of pension funds have invested in property too, so we'd need to gradually ease of the notion of property as income.

Prestor Jon wrote:

The reason rental properties are such a good investment in London is because London doesn't have enough housing. Creating more housing in London is extremely difficult financially politically so the shortage continues, the market gets more skewed and the rich get richer. As long as rich donors exert more influence than voters the priorities of the politicians won't change and the city won't be governed in the best interests of its current and future residents. It's not because property owners and landlords colluded to triple the market rate for rent because they can't. If that was possible every city in the world would have the same situation. Low income housing has low margins, it will never give a decent ROI in an area with high property values like London, which is why only governments create it either directly or through subsidies. Higher wages and more housing will force the market to drop no matter what landlords and owners want, because they don't control the market.

I never mentioned collusion between landlords and property owners, directly or indirectly. Where did you get that from? I'm arguing that these are largely natural market forces in play here, not corruption or collision. Supply and demand.

I repeat, changes in the population size vs properties available and normal inflation are nowhere near sufficient to cause a jump in value from £25,000 to £25000 in the space of twenty five years. What has primarily raised the prices for purchase (and therefore the rents) to that staggering level is the fact that everybody wants to buy and let in London. They want this because it gives top returns in both rental income and property rise value. When everyone wants to buy and supply is limited, prices go up. Every house a landlord buys to let helps to raise and keep high house prices, because it takes a house off the market for a first time buyer and adjusts the S/D equation (however infinitesimally).Ergo, if you removed all the buyers who are speculating for financial return, you cut down the number of available buyers vs available properties, and the prices will begin to go down.

Supply and demand, the fundamental forces of the market. I'm not sure what there is to argue with on this. You seem to be saying that the only way to lower prices is to increase supply. But that just alters the same equation at the opposite end. You either increase supply, or reduce demand. And landlords, in this scenario, make up about 50% of the demand (according to current London market stats). You slash half of the demand away, and prices will plummet, just as much as they would if you increased supply by that much.

I think we may just be saying the same thing from opposite ends of the market. Whether you slash demand or increase housing drastically, the net result is the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

The cynic in me says that no Government would do it because MP's are about 8x more likely to be landlords than the general public (at about 1/3rd of them). Unsurprisingly biased towards the Conservatives at about 40% of them making money from rentals.

There would be horrible effects across the board though, as lots of pension funds have invested in property too, so we'd need to gradually ease of the notion of property as income.

There is a natural bias in Parliament towards fiddling whilst Rome burns on this because they all tend to have personal stakes in it. Virtually all MP's own at least one property, the value of which would drop if they embarked on massive house building. So they mouth something about increasing housebuilding, safe in the knowledge that it'll never happen anywhere near sufficiently to stop their own investment climbing in worth.

We would need a genuinely socialist government to change things, and I don't see that in Labour or Lib Dems. The sort of working class politicians with working class concerns like those which came into power post-WW2 are long gone. Instead we get champagne socialists who like to fantasize about communism or middle-class neoliberals unable to see beyond their own noses and meaningless well-wishing. No-one anywhere is seriously advocating for large scale house building, or making dentistry free, or cracking down on the gig economy.

I'll cut off there though, because I'm veering into politics.

 Ketara wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

The reason rental properties are such a good investment in London is because London doesn't have enough housing. Creating more housing in London is extremely difficult financially politically so the shortage continues, the market gets more skewed and the rich get richer. As long as rich donors exert more influence than voters the priorities of the politicians won't change and the city won't be governed in the best interests of its current and future residents. It's not because property owners and landlords colluded to triple the market rate for rent because they can't. If that was possible every city in the world would have the same situation. Low income housing has low margins, it will never give a decent ROI in an area with high property values like London, which is why only governments create it either directly or through subsidies. Higher wages and more housing will force the market to drop no matter what landlords and owners want, because they don't control the market.

I never mentioned collusion between landlords and property owners, directly or indirectly. Where did you get that from? I'm arguing that these are largely natural market forces in play here, not corruption or collision. Supply and demand.

I repeat, changes in the population size vs properties available and normal inflation are nowhere near sufficient to cause a jump in value from £25,000 to £25000 in the space of twenty five years. What has primarily raised the prices for purchase (and therefore the rents) to that staggering level is the fact that everybody wants to buy and let in London. They want this because it gives top returns in both rental income and property rise value. When everyone wants to buy and supply is limited, prices go up. Every house a landlord buys to let helps to raise and keep high house prices, because it takes a house off the market for a first time buyer and adjusts the S/D equation (however infinitesimally).Ergo, if you removed all the buyers who are speculating for financial return, you cut down the number of available buyers vs available properties, and the prices will begin to go down.

Supply and demand, the fundamental forces of the market. I'm not sure what there is to argue with on this. You seem to be saying that the only way to lower prices is to increase supply. But that just alters the same equation at the opposite end. You either increase supply, or reduce demand. And landlords, in this scenario, make up about 50% of the demand (according to current London market stats). You slash half of the demand away, and prices will plummet, just as much as they would if you increased supply by that much.

I think we may just be saying the same thing from opposite ends of the market. Whether you slash demand or increase housing drastically, the net result is the same.

Yeah I quoted your post because I wanted to expand on it not because I was trying to argue against it. I think we are in agreement that the housing market in London has been artificially skewed and that the government doesn't have the will to change it.

I think finding the political will to make the needed changes is the hardest part. The financial problem isn't that big. Committing to creating abundant affordable housing would signal to the banks that rental rates will plunge and they need to write down a lot of rental property loans. Acknowledging that property values have decreased and reassessing values and writing down the mortgages to reflect the new reality still allows for everyone to benefit. The banks will still make money off the loans, just less money, owners will still make money off of rental properties, making $100 off of a $600 monthly rent isn't as nice as making $200 off of a $1200 monthly rent but it's a lot better than having your property foreclosed for nonpayment when rents drop but your mortgage doesn't. They'll be a competitive market for renters between government housing and privately owned rentals, different locations, different amenities but sane rates. The problem is that banks would rather force the foreclosures, inflict the economic pain and damage in exchange for the opportunity to buy those properties for pennies on the dollar and resell them for massive profit. Which is when you need principled politicians with a spine to call on the bank CEOs and boards and tell them not to be fethwits and crash the economy because the government has popular support for this and it's happening.

 Ketara wrote:

 John Prins wrote:

You honestly think that if there were no landlords, that houses would be so cheap that anyone could buy one? Landlords owning stuff doesn't drive up the price of lumber, concrete, plumbing or wiring. Houses cost money to build regardless of the value of the land it sits on.

How do you think all the boomers bought houses?

Here's an article about the subject. https://www.apartmentlist.com/research/homeownership-by-generation. At the low end of the income spectrum, home ownership rates are virtually identical across generations. Boomers had better rates in the middle and higher income brackets, but poor people have always had low home ownership rates.

Even thirty years ago, I could buy a one bed flat in south London for £25,000. Now? I'm looking at ten times that. And that's not because of inflation, or because building costs have gone up. The population growth figure isn't suddenly outstripping the new housing built to a vast degree either, is it? There is absolutely no material reason for the vast, vast increase in property price over the last fifty years.

Don't forget that governments have vastly increased the money supply as well in the last 20 odd years. Of course, most of that new money didn't go towards the lower income brackets. Rich people, generally being financially literate, realized how dangerous this is - it works so long as the rest of the world is willing to hold your currency as a reserve, which is why the USD hasn't seen massive inflation. But it does mean that your currency could devalue very, very quickly. But you know what doesn't devalue quickly and people will sell you for money? Land. So it's not just foreigners dumping money into safer havens, the locals are doing this as well

As to how someone can afford rent but not a mortgage, it's fairly simple. If a house costs 2400 a month to rent, you get 4 people together and split the rent. Now it's 600 a month for each person. You don't get a house to yourself, but it's way less than a mortgage payment. This is pretty common practice where I live, though it might be different in the UK - lower availability of multi-bedroom houses, I imagine.

I think the problem for most people getting mortgages, at least here in the UK is getting enough money for the deposit. After that, if you can afford to rent, you can generally afford to own.

I've had 2 different families rent my house for 3-4 years, before leaving to buy their own houses after saving for their deposit. This part of renting is also overlooked by the 'landlords are parasites' crowd.

I also know a fair few people who say they don't want to own a property and would rather rent and not have the issues that come with property ownership, and want the convenience of being able to move on a whim.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
If you've inherited property and rent it out, you're an economic parasite.

So people shouldn't be able to do what they wish with what they own?
What do you propose as an alternative? Should they have that property removed, by force? Should they be forced to provide housing for someone?

 John Prins wrote:

Don't forget that governments have vastly increased the money supply as well in the last 20 odd years. Of course, most of that new money didn't go towards the lower income brackets. Rich people, generally being financially literate, realized how dangerous this is - it works so long as the rest of the world is willing to hold your currency as a reserve, which is why the USD hasn't seen massive inflation. But it does mean that your currency could devalue very, very quickly. But you know what doesn't devalue quickly and people will sell you for money? Land. So it's not just foreigners dumping money into safer havens, the locals are doing this as well

I made a point of collating both foreign and domestic investors together in making my points about people buying up land here in London.

As to how someone can afford rent but not a mortgage, it's fairly simple. If a house costs 2400 a month to rent, you get 4 people together and split the rent. Now it's 600 a month for each person. You don't get a house to yourself, but it's way less than a mortgage payment. This is pretty common practice where I live, though it might be different in the UK - lower availability of multi-bedroom houses, I imagine.

Yeah, no, I realised that was what you were talking about. It's why I deleted that part of my post within about five minutes early yesterday evening. Frankly, I'm surprised to see a response to it today! Did you leave that page open overnight or something?

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

So people shouldn't be able to do what they wish with what they own?
What do you propose as an alternative? Should they have that property removed, by force? Should they be forced to provide housing for someone?

We already do the former. It's called inheritance tax. The problem with it is that it doesn't work on the wealthy (everything gets shoved into trusts) or corporate entities, or the upper middle classes (they put everything into the name of offshore held shell companies controlled by whoever they want to inherit). The only people it hits are the ones who own two or maybe three properties, who aren't wealthy enough to make alternative arrangements worthwhile. If you've got a portfolio of fifteen houses to pass down, no way you're getting bitten by inheritance tax. You go to your accountant, pay him a few thousand pounds, and he makes an arrangement with a nice gentleman called Pedro in Monaco or the Canary Islands or somewhere.

I think tightening up of inheritance tax law and restrictions on purchasing residential zone properties (i.e., if you've got three, you can't buy any more) might work. It would begin dulling the market immediately without crashing it, and would slowly bring the prices down over time. I believe such things have been tried in other overheated markets. It wouldn't be an automatic panacea, but it would start reversing house prices rather than raising them. The main problem would be the vast domestic faribbles emanating from those who are unhappy their investment asset is now worth less rather than more; especially if they're still locked into a mortgage at the old price.

People don't like social justice or reorganisations if it costs them money personally. And sadly, declining house prices would probably hit every member of Parliament in the pocket. And that's why it'll never happen. Like I said, the working class (non-land owning) majority administration you saw under Attlee will never happen again.

Simple money saving option, at least in the U.K.

Once your contract is nearly, talk with your internet or mobile provider and threaten to leave. 9 times out of 10, they’ll offer you a better deal to stay with them.

Tiny bit of arseache to do the call (and you do need to speak with them), and bingo, a better deal almost certainly offered.

Car Insurance much the same. Always shop around, and reveal the deal you’ve found to your current insurer. Chances are they’ll match it. And, if you possibly can, pay up front for your annual premium. When you’re paying monthly, there’s credit involved and you pay interest. It’s typically fairly small to be fair. Certainly not megabucks the way short term lenders tend to be. But it’s still money to be saved over the year if you’re fortunate enough to be able to afford a single leaner month. Plus it’s all paid up, so nothing you need worry about.

Speaking of car insurance....be careful on your excess (I think it’s co-payment in the USA/elsewhere). You might think higher excess leads to a lower premium, but you’d be wrong.

I’ve seen people with four figure excess amounts. Those poor folk are shooting themself in the foot, as it’s quite easy for car repairs to come in under your excess, in which case your premiums are wasted unless you hit someone else (and it’s that last part that’s the reason car insurance is compulsory in the U.K.)

That can mean your bum is out the window for essential repairs stemming from vandalism/minor damage - such as some arse smashing your wing mirror, or slashing your tyres.

Third Party, Fire & Theft is likewise pretty pointless, as if you damage your car, or the responsible party can’t be found, you’re stuffed with the repair Bill.

Match your cover to the value of your car. Dunno about anyone else, but my car (whilst perfectly serviceable and an excellent set of wheels overall) doesn’t have much resale value. So there’s even less point in me going for a high excess - chances are if I am in an accident, she’ll sadly be a write off. With my current £100 excess, I won’t be too far out of pocket should she need to be replaced.

Just be careful about second hand cars in general. Always get an approved ownership/finance check (because if you buy a second hand car that’s still on finance. The finance company can and will take it off, and there’s not a thing you can do about it).

And if you’re needing to use credit for the purchase, do more research. Is the car’s sticker value fair? How much is the interest adding? What’s its service history? What’s its life expectancy? After all, if you’ve signed up to say, a five year credit plan, but the car only has three years of life left in it, that’s a bad deal.

If you’re really penny pinching, also get the right car for your circumstances. Some cars get their fuel efficiency on long motorway trips. Others are better suited to town driving and relatively short trips. Typically where they might be efficient in Scenario A, they’ll guzzle gas in Scenario B.

If you’re buying for the school run, or buying for a regular commute, do your research accordingly.

And in terms of basic maintenance, look for youtube vids on how to do basics like changing lightbulbs, fuses etc. Because not all designs are equal. If a headlight goes, and you can only replace the whole unit, that’s gonna be more expensive than if you can just swap the bulb out (and by an order of magnitude).

Example? The CD player in my car didn’t work when I bought it. This meant I was down to the Radio only. Eventually bought and installed a new stereo unit (with Bluetooth. Fancy!). But not before I looked for “how-to” guides online.

Sadly the only one I could find explained you needed to wire it to the fuse box - but singularly failed to demonstrate how to do it. Eventually did a decent bodge job by wiring it into the heating controls, which was an alternative the same video suggested.

Basically, always be on the lookout for false economy. You might be saving today, but are you just setting yourself up for avoidable expense further down the line?

 Ketara wrote:

Yeah, no, I realised that was what you were talking about. It's why I deleted that part of my post within about five minutes early yesterday evening. Frankly, I'm surprised to see a response to it today! Did you leave that page open overnight or something?

No, someone else quoted you and I thought I'd address it anyways. It's something you see a lot in university towns.

And to bring it back to the original subject, if you're in a university town, check the university's bulletin board for cheap rental housing. Students are often required to sign a one-year contract when renting a space, but are there for only 8 months. Sub-letting those spaces can save you a TON of cash on rent, as usually each student has to find a sub-leaser on their own. The prices will be well below what the student pays, but there is the hassle of having to move every student term. Works even better if the university has a work-term program, which frees up even more sub-let spaces in the on-cycle.

Not something you'd want to do long term, but if you're really down on your luck it can be a godsend while you get back on your feet.