Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Lone Buyer, not sure what to do

  • 20-02-2018 1:20pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭


    I will soon have a deposit saved for a mortgage, however with current lending rules, my max budget would be €192.5k. I am in Dublin so this won't get me a lot, on top of that I would prefer to buy a house. Buying outside Dublin I am not against but commuting was never a favourite pastime of mine. :)

    So I'm not sure what to do. I could wait, get a pay-rise or two and increase my savings , but I'm 35 and hear your chances of getting a mortgage diminish as you approach 40?

    Should I just take what I can get now? I'm paying 860 in rent at the minute for a small moldy flat, would really like that to go toward a mortgage for a mold free house, one where I can't hear the neighbour upstairs peeing. :D


Comments

  • Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Pelvis wrote: »
    I will soon have a deposit saved for a mortgage, however with current lending rules, my max budget would be €192.5k. I am in Dublin so this won't get me a lot, on top of that I would prefer to buy a house. Buying outside Dublin I am not against but commuting was never a favourite pastime of mine. :)

    So I'm not sure what to do. I could wait, get a pay-rise or two and increase my savings , but I'm 35 and hear your chances of getting a mortgage diminish as you approach 40?

    Should I just take what I can get now? I'm paying 860 in rent at the minute for a small moldy flat, would really like that to go toward a mortgage for a mold free house, one where I can't hear the neighbour upstairs peeing. :D
    If you managed to get a 10% rise over the next 2 years and prices go up by 20% (I expect more) then you get less house. And you're 2 years behind paying. And interest rates will likely be higher than now.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭daheff


    OP- please also take into account the additional costs you face on a mortgage/home ownership

    -life assurance
    -property upkeep
    -house insurance
    -property tax

    etc


    that said, there is a lot to be said about owning your own place. when you retire (I guess you plan to do that eventually, right?) you wont need as much to live on as you will (most likely) have paid off the mortgage.


    If you move out & have to commute, look at the costs of that too....that needs to be taken into consideration for your quality of life....too expensive & bye bye anything other than an existance life.

    One piece of advice I would give you is buy somewhere you would be happy to live the rest of your life...just in case you get stuck and can't move.



    In terms of mortgage, at 35 you would just about get a 30 year mortgage, after that its pretty much retirement age- current age on the length of the mortgage (and corresponding higher monthly repayments to consider).


    Personally, buying a property has been on of the best things I've done. If anything goes wrong with it i can fix it as i please (Assuming I have the money). I can change furniture as i need to/ paint walls etc. Downside is the problems are my problems and i cannot run to the landlord to tell him/her to do it.


    Good luck with whatever you decide


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭Pelvis


    GoneHome wrote: »

    Hmmm.. The Blanch and Terrace Place ones look alright. Not sure on the others. And they are right at my budget, would imagine they'd go for a good bit more.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭Pelvis


    If you managed to get a 10% rise over the next 2 years and prices go up by 20% (I expect more) then you get less house. And you're 2 years behind paying. And interest rates will likely be higher than now.
    Very true.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,588 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    GoneHome wrote: »

    Christ they're grim!

    OP - any issue with living in an apartment? I'd rather spend 192k on an apartment somewhere a bit nicer than on a house in dodgeville.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,733 ✭✭✭caviardreams


    o1s1n wrote: »
    Christ they're grim!

    OP - any issue with living in an apartment? I'd rather spend 192k on an apartment somewhere a bit nicer than on a house in dodgeville.

    Would second this idea - you might well get a better insulated place with lower running costs too. OP, if you are not considering children an apartment could be an excellent choice - don't let your current bad experience put you off. Lots of apartments don't have mould issues and have reasonable sound insulation - also a lot of houses also suffer from poor soundproofing where you can hear kids running up the stairs or the washing machine etc.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,813 ✭✭✭Wesser


    It is very tough I agree. You also have to look at where you are in life and what your needs are it is not purely a financial transaction. Fundamentally there is no perfect right or wrong answer.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,245 ✭✭✭myshirt


    This is exactly why the rules are designed the way they are designed - stop people buying more house than they need.

    Op, all you need is a 1 bed apartment, you'll get that for your budget. Everyone in this country can't be in a 3 bed semi by themselves, it's poor use of housing stock and land.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭Pelvis


    myshirt wrote: »
    This is exactly why the rules are designed the way they are designed - stop people buying more house than they need.

    Op, all you need is a 1 bed apartment, you'll get that for your budget. Everyone in this country can't be in a 3 bed semi by themselves, it's poor use of housing stock and land.

    The rules are what they are to stop people from borrowing more money than they can afford to pay back. It has nothing to do with how many bedrooms a property has, which is why the rule isn't "a lone buyer can only buy a 1 bedroom property".

    The bank decides how much you can borrow, the market decides what you can buy.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭Pelvis


    o1s1n wrote: »
    Christ they're grim!

    OP - any issue with living in an apartment? I'd rather spend 192k on an apartment somewhere a bit nicer than on a house in dodgeville.
    Would second this idea - you might well get a better insulated place with lower running costs too. OP, if you are not considering children an apartment could be an excellent choice - don't let your current bad experience put you off. Lots of apartments don't have mould issues and have reasonable sound insulation - also a lot of houses also suffer from poor soundproofing where you can hear kids running up the stairs or the washing machine etc.

    TBH it's looking like an apartment might be the best option, I am reluctant though because of a) management companies/fees and b) the fact that I know I will want a house eventually.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,577 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    myshirt wrote: »
    This is exactly why the rules are designed the way they are designed - stop people buying more house than they need.

    Op, all you need is a 1 bed apartment, you'll get that for your budget. Everyone in this country can't be in a 3 bed semi by themselves, it's poor use of housing stock and land.

    Surely a 35 year old buying a one bed apartment would be spectacularly bad planning and future proofing?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,223 ✭✭✭Michael D Not Higgins


    Pelvis wrote: »
    The rules are what they are to stop people from borrowing more money than they can afford to pay back. It has nothing to do with how many bedrooms a property has, which is why the rule isn't "a lone buyer can only buy a 1 bedroom property".

    The bank decides how much you can borrow, the market decides what you can buy.

    No offence intended, but I think that's what he's getting at. The market has decided you can't afford a 3 bed semi-d.

    Less than 10% of the Dublin housing stock is in your price range and less than half of those are houses. You're talking about 30-40 houses in Dublin total in your price range.

    For apartments, you'd want to get a 2-bed to ensure resale as well as avoid the 30% deposit requirements most banks have for 1-beds, so that limits you to about 70 apartments in Dublin.

    As you can see it's slim pickings at the bottom of the market. Your best bet is expanding your search outside Dublin as you're being outpriced by couples in the market.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,825 ✭✭✭LirW


    As you can see it's slim pickings at the bottom of the market. Your best bet is expanding your search outside Dublin as you're being outpriced by couples in the market.

    Agree with this unfortunately.
    If your heart is set on your house, commuterville it is. There are nice houses to be had for your budget a bit out, explore your options.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,871 ✭✭✭✭gmisk


    I was going to suggest lower ballyfermot kind of area for that budget....but it looks like they have shot up a lot (as in +235k)....yikes I would just keep saving personally


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,168 ✭✭✭Ursus Horribilis


    myshirt wrote: »
    Op, all you need is a 1 bed apartment, you'll get that for your budget. Everyone in this country can't be in a 3 bed semi by themselves, it's poor use of housing stock and land.

    OP, whatever you choose to do, do not even think about buying a one bedroom apartment. Unless you're lucky, they're utterly unsuitable for anyone long term. As well as being tiny, they usually come with feck all storage. One of my brothers rented one for a while and he had to stash a load of his stuff in our parents house because there was nowhere to put it. And if anyone came to stay, they had to sleep in the kitchen/living room. Despite their best efforts, the living area was cramped because there waa nowhere to put things such as the clothes horse, ironing board etc.

    Another thing to consider is if you find things a bit tight, you've the option of renting out the spare room for a while.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,245 ✭✭✭myshirt


    I think the reality is you need 1 full time worker, plus half a worker per additional room as the bare minimum. So that means 2 full time workers for a 3 bed.

    We need more incomes per household now, and more people per household, that's how the market is. Gone are the days of many single buyers buying a 3 bed semi detached.

    To be fair, if you were the minister for housing or minister of finance, you would view the market as dysfunctional if it was churning out 1 person per 3 bedroom house.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭Pelvis


    No offence intended, but I think that's what he's getting at. The market has decided you can't afford a 3 bed semi-d.

    Less than 10% of the Dublin housing stock is in your price range and less than half of those are houses. You're talking about 30-40 houses in Dublin total in your price range.

    For apartments, you'd want to get a 2-bed to ensure resale as well as avoid the 30% deposit requirements most banks have for 1-beds, so that limits you to about 70 apartments in Dublin.

    As you can see it's slim pickings at the bottom of the market. Your best bet is expanding your search outside Dublin as you're being outpriced by couples in the market.

    No offense taken, I don't disagree with any of the the points you've made. But that's not at all what I think he meant, and if he did he then made a piss poor attempt at expressing it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 44 sm171


    I'm in a similar situation to OP except my budget is 270-300k and its the same thing. Very few decent houses (I'm not looking for huge 3 bed semi-detached, just small 2 beds) and any that go up for that price go for way more and become over budget.
    Apartments are a waste of money imo. Management fees with nothing in return, you can't do much to increase value and fundamentally, whether we like it or not, Irish people have no interest in living in apartments and they are not going to ever increase hugely in value. There are an awful lot of poorly built, badly maintained apartments out there. That's why I want a house.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,216 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    sm171 wrote: »
    I'm in a similar situation to OP except my budget is 270-300k and its the same thing. Very few decent houses (I'm not looking for huge 3 bed semi-detached, just small 2 beds) and any that go up for that price go for way more and become over budget.
    Apartments are a waste of money imo. Management fees with nothing in return, you can't do much to increase value and fundamentally, whether we like it or not, Irish people have no interest in living in apartments and they are not going to ever increase hugely in value. There are an awful lot of poorly built, badly maintained apartments out there. That's why I want a house.

    There is plenty available in your budget tbh. You are looking at areas you cannot afford obviously.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,223 ✭✭✭Michael D Not Higgins


    listermint wrote: »
    There is plenty available in your budget tbh. You are looking at areas you cannot afford obviously.

    A third (over 1000) of Dublin's property on daft is listed below 300k. If we assume the average place will go for 10-15% above the listed price we can limit the search to below 275k, which leaves about a quarter of properties (820). Minimum 2 beds, brings it down to 680. Houses only and it's down to 340. There should be plenty of options within a pool of several hundred.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 495 ✭✭bleary


    Pelvis wrote: »
    TBH it's looking like an apartment might be the best option, I am reluctant though because of a) management companies/fees and b) the fact that I know I will want a house eventually.

    Management fees cover your building insurance and often refuse charges. Many of the new estates also charge this for houses.
    I wouldn't rule it out on this basis as long as you have a good management company and well kept development. Think realistically about your lifestyle and requirements.
    Apartments are better as we age due to mobility, maintenance and security issues. Also easier to rent out generally. No rows over maintaining gardens etc.
    If a house then really a commute is the best option in that price range. House would be very small and poor condition.


Advertisement