Renting - so expensive!

Hi everyone,

I posted a while ago about renting in London and was told that I'd been paying too much before (1000 pcm for a one bed in Zone 4). Thing is, I've been looking online and I can't even find anything that cheap now. Flats in my old area are going for 1100 pcm or more.

I'd like to live a bit closer in than Zone 4 if possible, or possibly further out but paying way less rent. Obviously living far out means really high transport costs, so that idea might not work out at all.

Anyway, I've looked in quite a few different places and it doesn't seem like you can get much at all for under £1100/month and even then, the places are tiny. I've recently been looking in Blackheath, Muswell Hill, Bethnal Green and Ealing. I'll be working from home a lot, so really want somewhere 'nice' - ideally a period property kind of thing with loads of light, high ceilings and space, but I know you can't be too fussy in London. Really don't want to live in a shoebox, though, given my situation.

Any ideas?

83ste

The thing is, 1-bed properties aren't really intended for single occupancy - at least not for people on low-to-medium salaries. It's more for a couple paying 500pm each. You should be able to find a room in a house share in Zone 3/4 for around that.

serrity

serrity wrote: »

The thing is, 1-bed properties aren't really intended for single occupancy - at least not for people on low-to-medium salaries. It's more for a couple paying 500pm each. You should be able to find a room in a house share in Zone 3/4 for around that.

Sorry, forgot to say, we ARE a couple. I'm just the one in charge of flat hunting!

Fysh

I'm not sure where you're looking, but according to a quick search on rightmove.co.uk, within 1/4 of a mile of NW6 there are plenty of 1-bedroom properties for £230pw or less (which is effectively your threshold for £1Kpcm). Personally, I'd suggest seeing if you can stretch to £1100pcm between you, you ought to find something reasonably nice for that. It'll depend on the area, of course, but in NW6 at least there seem to be properties available within your budget.

Be prepared for a lot of gobsheenery on the part of agencies, such as listing properties with ludicrous prices that are "no longer available", or calls telling you that they've found "the perfect place for you" which happens to ignore all your specifications. But if you wade through the nonsense you should be able to find something.

exiledelbows

Skip agencies altogether and try and go private if you can. Been here five years and never used an agency. It limits your choice somewhat but much less hassle (from what I've heard from friends dealing with them) and you and your prospective landlord can bond over your shared loathing for them

rgmmg

Checkout gumtree and filter by Private Ads in the property section. You should be able to get soemthing for that budget closer in than z4..

Fysh

exiledelbows wrote: »

Skip agencies altogether and try and go private if you can. Been here five years and never used an agency. It limits your choice somewhat but much less hassle (from what I've heard from friends dealing with them) and you and your prospective landlord can bond over your shared loathing for them

It's fine if you're not in a hurry, but trying not to deal with agencies is an absolute ballache if you're working to a deadline. In the absence of a daft.co.uk there's no simple way of tracking available properties, and you also need to ensure that you're versed on what to expect in a tenancy agreement and your rights re: deposit protection.

silvervixen84

You can limit your search to 1 bed/studios on spareroom and set up email alerts for the areas & price you're interested if if that helps.

I got my last flat through spareroom and my current one through gumtree. It's best to use both.

fasttalkerchat

Out of interest I thought I'd have a look for you. I only tried Ealing and found 2 nice places on the first page. Asking price is 1000 so you could probably throw in an offer.

http://www.gumtree.com/p/flats-houses/lovely-1-bedroom-flat-on-ealing-common-1000/1011436157#gallery-item-full-4

or

http://www.gumtree.com/p/flats-houses/a-stunning-one-bedroom-flat-in-modern-gated-development-close-to-acton-central-station/1009009880

Fysh

Fysh wrote: »

I'm not sure where you're looking, but according to a quick search on rightmove.co.uk, within 1/4 of a mile of NW6 there are plenty of 1-bedroom properties for £230pw or less (which is effectively your threshold for £1Kpcm). Personally, I'd suggest seeing if you can stretch to £1100pcm between you, you ought to find something reasonably nice for that. It'll depend on the area, of course, but in NW6 at least there seem to be properties available within your budget.

Be prepared for a lot of gobsheenery on the part of agencies, such as listing properties with ludicrous prices that are "no longer available", or calls telling you that they've found "the perfect place for you" which happens to ignore all your specifications. But if you wade through the nonsense you should be able to find something.

In my experience, agencies and landlords usually have a weird way of working out the rent, so it's not 230 x 4 to get the monthly rate, but multiplied by the no of weeks in the year and divided by 12 or something, so it works out a good bit higher. Another issue with most of the sites is that 'one beds' often turn out to be studios, which won't work for us at all. Don't mind an open plan kitchen/living area, but absolutely need a separate bedroom.

I have noticed that you can get much more for £1100 but that would be stretching it a lot. To be honest, even £1000 is more than we can comfortably afford at the moment, so that's really our upper limit.

I've always tried to steer clear of Gumtree because there are so many scams etc, but I may well give that a go next. I guess it doesn't help that we don't have a fixed area in mind to help narrow it all down. Last time, we knew we wanted N3, this time we're having to research all the areas as well as flathunt and it's really overwhelming! :eek:

Vokes

I pay 900pcm for a 1-Bed (not a studio) in Ealing (Zone 3) - although that would be considered an exception rather than the norm. 950+pcm would be more typical for the area.

1000pcm for a 1-bed in Zone 4 does seem a little high.

Jack B. Badd

Chanel Cuddly Mourner wrote: »

In my experience, agencies and landlords usually have a weird way of working out the rent, so it's not 230 x 4 to get the monthly rate, but multiplied by the no of weeks in the year and divided by 12 or something, so it works out a good bit higher.

That's not weird, that's how months work o_O

NoQuarter

Jack B. Badd wrote: »

That's not weird, that's how months work o_O

£230 x 4 = 920

£230 x 52/12 = 996


Basically, if you see a property at 100 per week, its not that same as a property for 400 per month. If you pay by week you will end up paying more as there are more than 4 weeks in every calendar month.

Jack B. Badd

Jack B. Badd wrote: »

That's not weird, that's how months work o_O

What NoQuarter said. A lot of people seem to work out the monthly rent by doing weekly rent x 4 because that's how it works in most places. I've lived in loads of countries and the system used in London is fairly unique, in my experience. It means a lot more work when working out the true monthly rent because it's rarely advertised as a monthly rate and you can't just do weekly rent x 4.

Fysh

NoQuarter wrote: »

£230 x 4 = 920

£230 x 52/12 = 996

Basically, if you see a property at 100 per week, its not that same as a property for 400 per month. If you pay by week you will end up paying more as there are more than 4 weeks in every calendar month.

Yes. This is no surprise to anyone who can count, otherwise you'd have 13 months in a 52-week year. I really don't see where the confusion is arising here - 4 weeks in a month is quite obviously an approximation, and any landlord or agent who's not a moron (or in the business of losing money) will set their weekly and monthly rents to be the same annual rent.

If those numbers don't add up, something's gone wrong and either you're dealing with someone who's mathematically illiterate or they're trying to pull a fast one.

Fysh

Fysh wrote: »

Yes. This is no surprise to anyone who can count, otherwise you'd have 13 months in a 52-week year. I really don't see where the confusion is arising here - 4 weeks in a month is quite obviously an approximation, and any landlord or agent who's not a moron (or in the business of losing money) will set their weekly and monthly rents to be the same annual rent.

If those numbers don't add up, something's gone wrong and either you're dealing with someone who's mathematically illiterate or they're trying to pull a fast one.

There is no confusion. It's just that a lot of the time, outside London, the default amount is the monthly rate and the weekly rate is given for budgeting purposes only. When I was a student in the UK, we were quoted 100 a week for weekly rent, but the monthly rent was 400, so they had just divided by 4 to give you the weekly rate. Any other country I've lived in, the weekly rate given (if one is given) has just been the monthly rate divided by 4.

The only reason the rent is given weekly in London is because it sounds extortionate when given monthly. Giving weekly rents isn't really very helpful to anyone - it's not as if you pay the rent weekly, so what's the point? Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well but it's a London thing that gets on my nerves. You can't just look at a price and immediately know how much your rent will be, you need to work it out.

Most people who come to London from elsewhere assume that the monthly rent is weekly x 4, because that's how it is in most places.

Fysh

Chanel Cuddly Mourner wrote: »

There is no confusion. It's just that a lot of the time, outside London, the default amount is the monthly rate and the weekly rate is given for budgeting purposes only. When I was a student in the UK, we were quoted 100 a week for weekly rent, but the monthly rent was 400, so they had just divided by 4 to give you the weekly rate. Any other country I've lived in, the weekly rate given (if one is given) has just been the monthly rate divided by 4.

The only reason the rent is given weekly in London is because it sounds extortionate when given monthly. Giving weekly rents isn't really very helpful to anyone - it's not as if you pay the rent weekly, so what's the point? Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well but it's a London thing that gets on my nerves. You can't just look at a price and immediately know how much your rent will be, you need to work it out.

Most people who come to London from elsewhere assume that the monthly rent is weekly x 4, because that's how it is in most places.

But I don't think it is a London thing; that's what I'm getting at. I've never seen anywhere that did rent as "weekly rate, x4 for monthly rent". I've always dealt with monthly rents, here and in Ireland, whether I was a student or working. Given that there aren't 4 weeks in every month, setting the monthly rent to be 4x the weekly rent just seems odd to me.

Having said that, I guess it's worth adding a comment about this to the FAQ sticky so that people can be forewarned in future.

On a more general note - given a monthly budget, the key thing is your upper limit. You need to be able to look at the rent for a place (whether weekly or monthly) and be able to answer the one-bit question "is it within the budget?". Remember that council tax and one-time agent fees should be factored into this budget - the former is particularly important given that council tax for a 1-room flat can be around 1 month's rent (though nice councils will usually let you split the payment over 10 or 12 months to make it more manageable).

I've found it helps to have a list of things you want/do not want in the property, along with your maximum rent and council tax - given how quickly rental properties get snapped up in London, being able to make a quick decision can be the difference between getting a place or missing out.

djpbarry

Fysh wrote: »

It's fine if you're not in a hurry, but trying not to deal with agencies is an absolute ballache if you're working to a deadline. In the absence of a daft.co.uk there's no simple way of tracking available properties, and you also need to ensure that you're versed on what to expect in a tenancy agreement and your rights re: deposit protection.

There are a couple of online agencies like Tenants4U and IAmTheAgent - no idea if they're any good, but they are considerably cheaper than traditional agencies.

djpbarry

Chanel Cuddly Mourner wrote: »

There is no confusion. It's just that a lot of the time, outside London, the default amount is the monthly rate and the weekly rate is given for budgeting purposes only. When I was a student in the UK, we were quoted 100 a week for weekly rent, but the monthly rent was 400, so they had just divided by 4 to give you the weekly rate.

If your monthly rent is £400, then your weekly rate is £92.31. If your weekly rent is £100, then your monthly rent is £433.33.

I really don't understand how this can be an issue - it's simple arithmetic.

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

If your monthly rent is £400, then your weekly rate is £92.31. If your weekly rent is £100, then your monthly rent is £433.33.

I really don't understand how this can be an issue - it's simple arithmetic.

I've already explained this. It's not an issue with maths. I'm just not used to rent being done weekly and worked out in this way. London is the only place I've ever lived (and I've lived in a lot of places) where this is the done thing. Rent is almost always paid monthly so why not just give the monthly bloody price and be done with? So you don't need to stand in front of estate agent windows messing around with a calculator trying to figure out what the place actually costs? I've met loads of people who moan about this in real life so I'm baffled as to why you don't get my point! Even my last estate agent said it was stupid.

Unsurprisingly, there seems to be a lot of bait and switch being done on the property websites. I've seen one-beds advertised at £1000 pcm or less but when I ring up to ask, I'm told they're no longer available but that there's a lovely place down the road for 'just a bit more' (read, 150 pcm more). So I'm not sure if it's even worth continuing to look online.

djpbarry

Chanel Cuddly Mourner wrote: »

London is the only place I've ever lived (and I've lived in a lot of places) where this is the done thing.

I just don't understand why it's such a big issue is all. Makes absolutely no difference at the end of the day.

breadmonkey

Chanel Cuddly Mourner wrote: »

Unsurprisingly, there seems to be a lot of bait and switch being done on the property websites. I've seen one-beds advertised at £1000 pcm or less but when I ring up to ask, I'm told they're no longer available but that there's a lovely place down the road for 'just a bit more' (read, 150 pcm more). So I'm not sure if it's even worth continuing to look online.

Yeah I've found that looking online is generally a complete waste of time, especially on letting agents site or the likes of Zoopla. If I do search online, I'll usually restrict the search to items posted within the last day or two. Even at that you'll find lots of crap.

freelancerTax

i live in london zone 4 - my rent is 900 a month including water rates
its a renovated victorian property with high cellings - we have the upper floor

so what you want can be found - the downside to our place is transport - its a 20 minute wallk to the tube station - although i dont mind this - some may

i would avoid agents - they are worse than useless - giving you the run around at every chance. i used gumtree to find my place and all previous places i have rented in london

places like bethnal green are expensive because they are popular with young professionals - places near by can be a good bit cheaper - for example last year i saw a good few places in and around spitalfields for 200 pw or under

good luck with the hunt
ft

FTA69

I would personally avoid agents but then again I know people who have found great places through them. A common trick used by them (and by landlords themselves) is to advertise a property and then respond to a request with "oh that's gone but I have one just like it...". I would keep an eye on various websites like GumTree a few times a day.

One thing I will say is that you should be prepared to view a place at the drop of a hat. You're up against a lot of competition and trying to schedule viewings for the weekend etc will just result in you losing out to other renters time and time again. If you find a place that you like and which suits then say you'll take it straight away. If you don't you can be sure others will.

Also when dealing with a landlord direct be conscious of the fact that your deposit needs to be held by a third party, a company with that specific purpose. This is to ensure that some greedy bastard doesn't rip you off. Something which is all too common at home.

Fysh

Depending on the area you're looking, it may be more or less feasible to decide not to deal with agents. It'll also depend to some extent on whether you're looking for a room share in a house or a full property.

If you are looking online, you have to be prepared to put in a bit of time to get yourself up to speed with what's on the market currently. This means spending several hours trawling through listings on Zoopla, Rightmove, etc making notes of the ones that catch your eye and checking whether they're available. Once you've gotten through the backlog it becomes easier to keep up with the genuinely new postings, and you'll also have an idea of what properties are used as bait repeatedly (along with the agencies most prone to trying that particular trick).

If you're dealing with agences, you have to accept that their goal is to find tenants for the most expensive properties possible, as this will maximise their commissions. This means there are a number of tricks they will use to try and lure in prospective tenants, from honeypot properties which are unavailable through concurrent viewing appointments to specification creep. These are all things that suck, yes, but they are also the reality of the marketplace in London, so you're better off accepting it and just getting on with life than moaning about it.

mossy464

Im starting to research a possible move to london myself and after a quick search I found some places in NW6.

Anyone know why this particular property is so cheap?

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/details/28435972?search_identifier=f820f55dfa2440c577cb8efab5c858f9

83ste

mossy464 wrote: »

Im starting to research a possible move to london myself and after a quick search I found some places in NW6.

Anyone know why this particular property is so cheap?

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/details/28435972?search_identifier=f820f55dfa2440c577cb8efab5c858f9

I'm not going to waste the price of a phonecall to confirm, but as has been mentioned above, it's probably a 'bait' ad placed by an agency. When you ring up, they'll tell you it's gone, but they have other properties in the same area for a little more.

mossy464

serrity wrote: »

I'm not going to waste the price of a phonecall to confirm, but as has been mentioned above, it's probably a 'bait' ad placed by an agency. When you ring up, they'll tell you it's gone, but they have other properties in the same area for a little more.

Thanks, so I guess I'm dreaming to think I could get a place for this price?

djpbarry

mossy464 wrote: »

Im starting to research a possible move to london myself and after a quick search I found some places in NW6.

Anyone know why this particular property is so cheap?

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/details/28435972?search_identifier=f820f55dfa2440c577cb8efab5c858f9

I suspect it's an honest mistake - probably should be advertised at 360 per week.

mossy464

mossy464 wrote: »

Thanks, so I guess I'm dreaming to think I could get a place for this price?

Yes. You'd be lucky to get a room in a flatshare for that price.

Fysh

djpbarry wrote: »

I suspect it's an honest mistake - probably should be advertised at 360 per week.

Having lived in Kilburn for several years, I'd say 300-360pw is what you'd expect for a 2-bed in Brondesbury Villas - it's pushed as being very much in Queens Park ie the posh gentrified bit of Kilburn.