millenials can't afford houses because they're brunching (or not)

Yes I do have a friend who was stung by a leasehold house, it was not at all as apparent as it is with flats that are advertised blatently as leasehold (which still is not common abroad, share of freehold/commonhold sort of set ups are more common).

You might think she was foolish to not check but she had solicitors checks and surveys etc and it was really hidden in there in a sub-parragraph of the deeds, her lender didn't flag it up, but when she came to sell other lenders were pulling out because of it.

In the end she had to drop her price MASSIVELY to off-load it.

Even the "ground rent" was deceptively called "community maintenance" or something like that.

Now you have to ask specifically "is this freehold" every time you view a newish house, which people don't realise because it used to be a given that stand alone houses were always freehold.

It's being done very sneakily..

On a slightly different point but still connected to housing, there was an article in The Guardian today about the increasing number of new houses that are leasehold:

www.theguardian.com/money/2016/oct/29/new-builds-house-buyers-leasehold-property-trap

It is customary for flats to be leasehold (though I don't believe this system exists in other countries) but I think most people don't expect houses to also be sold leasehold.

Although new homes are usually sold with 999 year leases, which in the past meant that the freehold could be purchased for a reasonable amount, apparently there is an increasing incidence of builders/freeholders selling on the freehold to other companies. Instead of the customary £2,000 to £3,000 that buying the freehold would have cost a leaseholder, there are now several instances of leaseholders being told they will have to pay £30,000 or £40,000.

The article gave an example of Persimmon homes which are being sold leasehold. The company's brochures apparently do not make it clear that the properties are leasehold and house buyers - and even solicitors - do not necessarily understand that the financial implications may now be much greater.

Sebastian O'Kelly of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership was quoted as saying "It is disgraceful that plc housebuilders are building leasehold houses that ordinarily - and until recently - would have had freehold title. This is an erosion of the wealth of ordinary people by the rich". Justin Madders, MP, is calling for a ban on leasehold for estates of houses, saying it is being abused to drive huge profits at ordinary homeowners' expense."

Desperately need more housing stock but unfortunately there has been a woeful lack of government will to make this happen. Without the government subsiding and supporting the building of social housing the problem has got worse an worse. The real winners are those who own a string of rental properties.

That is why we need more housing stock! If government provide a good percentage of the homes for those who may never be able to buy that would ease pressure up the line.

Call me cynical but those who benefit from the high property prices tend to be big business and big business often have the -pocket- ear of government so the chances of it happening are slim... meanwhile it is our kids' kids struggling.

It is a question of supply and demand. If a lot of people are after a few houses, then prices rise. If a lot of those sellers are chasing few buyers, then prices fall. Simples.

Bottom line is we do not have cheaper rental property in this country. Too much LA stock sold of in 70's and insufficient replacement properties built so now prices (rental/purchase) are at a premium in most areas where jobs are available.
We can all recall 'struggling' & going without etc. to save for a deposit/ 'key' money but even if younger folk do that today it still takes years to get the deposit saved as rentals are so high in many areas. peole have to live where they work..travel costs are not going to get cheaper.
A brave government would invest in what used to be called council housing: it would generate work, create homes & be a long term source of income!

Your children and grandchildren will only inherit whatever's left after the care home/nursing fees have been met though, nanasam, if you are unlucky enough to need such care.

Nothing is guaranteed.

As for 'doing what we did and move up the property ladder bit by bit', for an increasing number of young people it's become impossible to gain a foothold at all.

Candelle I totally agree with you and was in the same position in the 70s. We had a high mortgage and I couldn't afford to take my kids to McDonalds or eat out. We hardly ever went on holiday and never went abroad until my DD was 12. We really struggled.
I recently inherited a small sum from my DM and we have, approaching our 70s, moved into the house of our dreams. I refuse to feel guilty over this. I still don't take my GSs to McD and had my first Costa a few weeks ago as a special treat!
Best of all, my DD, DS and DGSs will have some inheritance themselves.
Do Gen Y not realise that they will do the same? No, they want it NOW!!

I live 2 miles from Loch Lomond and 18 miles from Glasgow city centre ,you can buy a nice one bedroom flat here for under £50.000 ,be in town in 20 minutes by car or 40 minutes on the train.That proximity to both countryside and city is fantastic ,I wouldn't live in an overcrowded part of the south and have to pay through the nose for the privilege of doing so ...not even if you paid me.Why cant others see the benefits of moving to our less populated much more affordable part of the world.ALL immigrants are welcome ,after all they work and contribute to the economy and community

In local authority/council houses you CAN paint a wall or hang a picture and you have security of tenure. There is a crying need for more LA rentals. I do hope that we soon see many more being built.

The problem about saving though is that interest rates are so low! There was even talk about negative interest rates being brought in: we would have to pay for the privilege of lending the banks money.

We were married in the 1960's and saved (i.e. walked to the station to save bus fare, didn't wear tights in the summer, went for walks as our dates etc., etc., etc., well you get the drift) really hard for our own home - as did many others at that time.

We have been 'fortunate' in working hard to pay off our mortgage, retire early, blah blah blah - without a penny from state or relatives.

However, I am becoming increasingly cross with the line being fed to the general population regarding those pensioners who 'have had it all' - i.e. us. There really seems to be a move to demonise older people.

I therefore agree that some, obviously not all, of Generation Y need to get a grip. I walk past coffee shops and they seem to be choc-a-bloc at all times of the day with young people. How? Why are they not working or buying a jar of Nescafe?

We had sky-high interest rates, everything seemed unattainable and I can remember walking into Sainsbury's and deciding not to buy a joint of meat as it was too expensive - I think my overall 'housekeeping' was £9.00 a week towards the end of the 1960's.

I see a creep of ageism in newspapers and television by various 'commentators'.

I ensure any money (bar a small amount for immediate pleasure, I'm not that curmudgeonly!) given to my grandchildren is saved. The older ones understand the concept of interest - working both for them as savers and against them as debtors.

Yes, I understand that house prices are appalling for youngsters but do what we did and move up the property ladder bit by bit.

I just don't understand the 'spend it now' mentality instead of doing some hard graft, saving, doing without for a while and obtaining one's own home.

Think I need to take a chill pill...

The other thing is - are people hoping to buy on their own?

No, just somewhere they can make a "home" I think, and stay securely for more than 6 months at a time. Since that's often not the reality of renting people long to buy, but really they just want a "home" IMO where they can settle for the immediate future and make their own.

I remember how hard the early 80s were, granted I was not the one paying the bills but I do remember it was hard, I remember people's mums sobbing in their kitchens, it WAS tough, however peoples homes were their own y'know, whether they were renting or buying, people didn't have to live quite so transiently. My friends generally stayed put in their houses (rented or owned), the houses might have been pretty bare, but it was their home and they could settle there. My DDs friends are having to move not by choice regularly if their parents rent and it's crappy. They can't even paint a wall or hang a picture. It sucks, it's soul destroying knowing that the roof over your head is only temporary.

The other thing is - are people hoping to buy on their own?

I think that was mainly unheard of many years ago - everyone seemed to buy in couples; I know they discounted the lower salary but there were usually two incomes.

I agree

I did say we need more social housing
Not everyone will be in a position to buy

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/anne-baxendale/housing-crisis-shelter-living-standards_b_12519916.html?1476692733

here ^ see it's not about necessarily wanting to own, it's about just wanting to live somewhere where you you can feel at home

An online article in the Metro in February this year contained an interactive map of areas in the UK where average wage earners can afford to buy a home. Based on this map, the report continued:

"These interactive property maps will make depressing reading for most people who are planning to buy a home.

"They apparently show it is near impossible for a person earning an average wage to buy an average priced home in the majority of the country.

"This is the case even if they secure a generous mortgage and have 20 per cent to put down as a deposit.

"Both maps demonstrate that for both single and dual income households, property in the capital and much of the South of England is only affordable for high earners,’ said Frances Clacy, research analyst at estate agents Savills.

"The only hope solo buyers have is if they move to one of 16 locations that are still affordable, which are located mostly in Wales and the north of the country.

"The study analysed 348 local authorities.

"It came to the conclusion even if your wages were in the top ten per cent, you would still struggle to buy property in 40 areas....."

My son and his partner both work - he in a full-time well paid job and she in a part-time moderately well paid job. Despite that, they required significant financial assistance from both sets of parents to buy a home in our area - which is still one of the cheapest in London.

There are areas where property is much cheaper but these are often depressed areas of above average unemployment and low wages or rural areas some distance away from the employment opportunities available in towns and cities. And renting is no solution - rents are out of control in many areas and social housing is only available for the most desperate cases.

Whatever anyone says about the difficulties they experienced in the 70s and early 80s - and we experienced them too having moved from the south east to the north west and then back again - I don't think it compares to the awful situation today.

There are plenty of nation-wide factors that make things harder now

Jobs that were entry level "walk in off the street" foot in the door types of jobs with livable salaries when I was in my 20s now either don't exist at all as they're now filled with a revolving door of £3/hr apprenticeships, or they now requre qualifications and experience and are much harder to get.

Qualifications are harder to get, they take longer and they cost more.

Funding for adult learning completely dried up for a while.. it's improved slightly now granted. But it's still not what it used to be.

I believe that people right now are very static! where you are is where you're stuck and it's much much harder now to change your position in life than it used to be.

I was really lucky to be a school leaver when I was - our biggest problem was deciding which opportunity to take. It was a different time!

Ah - Cambridge? I'm assuming now, of course!

I know how expensive that is, BF's DD and SIL were working and living there.

Cambridge and similar places are just not the same as most of the rest of the country.

I never said that they deserved it. But put your own interpretation on people's posts if you wish.

Are you new? You are make many assumptions about what people are posting, perhaps without reading their posts properly.

Blinkered?

Perhaps all those with 'get up and go' have got up and gone

it's actually the kind of place that people with "get up and go" move to because it's a centre for various industries/professions, but go ahead and assume everyone who is finding things tough deserves it! you're determined to anyway

They are within walking distance of the city centre
There are some slightly more expensive a bit further away (2 miles?)
There is another city about 10 miles away
Another city a bit further away - more difficult to get to but there is a through bus
A big town just a bus ride away

Thousands of jobs advertised
Hundreds of them above average wage

But perhaps not in your particular area notanan
I feel sorry for people who live there, especially if they do not want to move away.

Perhaps all those with 'get up and go' have got up and gone.

Like our invaluable Eastern European workers who have had the 'get up and go' to come here for jobs and lots of our young people who have got up and gone all over the world.

moving off commuter routes is a luxury, you need a job that pays enough to cover a car or transport back in

There are cheaper properties off the main commuter routes, but then you need a reliable car.

Only the main commuter routes serve workers who work weekends as a lot of the more peripheral bus routes start later on weekends

Another factor of moving further into the suburbs is that you're often looking at either adding 2 hours a day to your childcare costs (if you use a childcare provider near home so your child doesn't have to do the commute) and out of hours childcare (like before 8 ish at some places) costs a supplement

"just move somewhere cheaper" is a bit Marie Antoinnette when people have jobs to get to

It's the old "takes money to make money" conundrum, you have to be able to afford to travel more if you are to take advantage of lower house prices further out

There is a tendency on Gransnet for people to relate their own situation as if it applies to the majority of the population
I agree, Eloethan which is why it is not a good idea to generalise or believe that what is relevant to one area relates to the whole country re house prices.

They must be very expensive indeed where notanan lives - but in fact we have just gone through the outskirts of a city a few miles from us this morning where property on new developments start at £89,995, deposit required £3,500.

Of course, if two people are on the minimum wage then they will not be able to afford to buy, and that has always been the case.

I said 13 times our household salary, lots of working households are on less than average salary - that's what average means
I assume from that statement that notanan's household salary is average - which is £26,500 pa. That x 13 which is the cost of the most affordable house in that area is nearly £350,000!!

Quite a difference to areas near us, which is why I agree that it is wise not to relate their own situation as if it applies to the majority of the population.

And of course, I did say that we need more social housing.

without social mobility people get stuck where they are and it's not because they are more flawed or less ambitious than previous generations