Of course it appears cheaper!

Obviously a press release to push Santander Mortgages. So in my area, West Midlands the saving is £996.
Less - House Insurance - £250
Boiler Service Package- £300
Routine Repairs - Taps
Lights, Toilets etc - £200
Planned Maintenance
Exterior Decorating,
gutter clearing, fencing - £250
Total - £1,000
Saving - £4.00
This was taken from one of my properties averaged out over three years.

Reply to the comment left by Gary Nock at 20/06/2018 - 09:42
Good job you didn't have to replace a boiler, carpets, bathroom and kitchen Gary. Imagine the difference then!

This really annoys me, as historically renting was always cheaper up until the mid 1980’s as there was the understanding that landlords would have a great asset (a property) at the end of a mortgage. And those who wanted to buy could do so and those who weren’t in that position or who wanted to rent, did that.
This only changed when ‘buy to let’ mortgages came in and banks demanded as part of their criteria that the rent cover more than the mortgage. 110% as I vaguely remember.
The long term effects of that policy are what we are living with now, with massively increased housing costs - whereas renting or buying a home previously took roughly a quarter of one persons wage. I live in the south east and see people crippled by rents, and only able to buy a one bed flat if the banks were to agree to 8 x their salary.
Now that the banks are left effectively holding a large amount of property, where landlords have taken interest only mortgages and remortgaged as a business strategy, they want to turn it around so that there are more homeowners just in case there’s a crash. They don’t want to be left holding the baby.
I’m not sure if incorporation has different financing rules, wondering why there’s been a push towards that with S24?
None of these changes have landlords, tenants or homeowners in mind. They are all about the banks - always have been.

These 'hidden' costs owners are responsible for are just the tip of the iceberg, and banks are doing their customers a disservice by not pointing this out.
On the basis that the majority of new build homes typically targeting first time buyers and young families are 'Leasehold' or 'Fleecehold', they are not only faced with all the usual costs and, importantly, responsibilities of home ownership, but they then face being exploited by greedy and immoral developers and ground rent companies, with potentially uncapped service charge costs, ground rent payments, large unplanned repair bills, and permission fees for e.g. owning a puppy or changing a carpet... PLUS... massive legal costs and potential home forfeiture if you break the terms of the lease or fail or refuse to pay. If that wasn't enough to deter home ownership, how about being unable to sell your 'home' if you need to move for work or your family grows!
The cost of the stress associated with leasehold is not only financial, but physical and emotional.
This is what many thousands of 'amateur' BTL landlords live with every day, but their tenants don't see any of that!

I notice that while the table shows those in the east of England paying £43 more in rent than mortgage, the text of the release says mortgage exceeds rent. Crossed wires somewhere.
Of course, there is no mention of the costs landlords have to bear because some tenants do not take care of the property since it does not belong to them, leave owing rent or, worse still, refuse to leave until they've caused the landlord hefty court fees and loss of rent while the property is in unlettable condition.

We grew up in council housing, and even though we paid rent, we treated it like our own home. Even to the point of installing our own gas fires (to thaw the ice on the inside of the windows!) and building a bathroom extension in the garden (so we didn't have to use the tin bath in the Kitchen!). We 'ad it tough in them days!
The point I'm making is renters, even in social housing, display zero responsibility for their 'home', but expect everything to be done for them, and if it isn't, it's all the landlord's fault and the government should legislate to protect them against the 'greedy' landlords.
Driven by the likes of Shelter and Generation Rent, immigration, massive pressure on social housing, and unfair and misguided government taxation and legislation of amateur BTL landlords, I think it will soon reach breaking point, if it isn't already there, where demand cannot be met by supply.
There has always been a majority of the population who cannot buy... and very soon... will not be able to rent either!

If you need to move houses every 2 years or so because of your work then estate agents fees alone will eat up the difference. Add in the length of time it can take to sell a property nowadays, often several months, and I can see why many younger people prefer to rent!

My tenants would be better off buying than renting and I have tried persuading some of them of that. They say they don't want to be tied down and they don't want the responsibility. They like the freedom of being able to move around even if they don't actually take advantage of that freedom. I was the same in my twenties.

Reply to the comment left by Alison King at 20/06/2018 - 12:55
You've highlighted the lack of flexibility of owning, but I have to disagree that your tenants would be better off buying. The above 'hidden' ownership issues speak for themselves, and if I was a young potential buyer, I would stick with renting.

There are hundreds of thousands of new leaseholders who thought they would be owning their new homes, only to find they are not owning and worse than renting.

Personally, I’d still encourage all youngsters to buy property, but not their home. Then they can have the best of both worlds in terms of flexibility and capital appreciation to help fund their retirement and long term care costs.