Has anyone regretted stepping off the wondrous property ladder?

BradleyC said:
Thanks to everyone for your replies. Most interesting and a wide spread of views.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a lot of conflicting "objectives" in your post. You do not say when you intend taking off, but doing that in the near future does not fit well with teenage children going to university in the near future. On the other hand going at your age and getting out of the property owning and mortgage scene does at least give you the opportunity in the future to get back in if you don't like the liveaboard life. While being mortgage free might seem like a good idea it does lock you out of the most consistent way of building assets for the future.

The time when you want to be mortgage free is when you decide (or it is decided for you) to no longer work and live off a reduced income. Of course that often means that it happens when you may not be in a position to actual cope with taking off.

Just because you have had a dream since you were 7 does not mean you have to try and live it. In the intervening years you seem to have changed your circumstances and responsibilities so what seems simple when you are 7 becomes complex and dependent on others in addition to yourself.

Gets back to what I suggested earlier - only you can make the decision in conjunction with the others who are affected by that decision. Very different from an individual without responsibilities where the only one affected is themselves.

Just one word of advice - be wary of the "unconventional" and trying to gain an advantage by exploiting alternative ways of living. While they may look attractive there is often a penalty for bucking the trend, if only because if such actions were a "good thing" everybody would be doing it!
 
It is likely that a wife will outlive her husband by many years and is less likely to want to continue sailing alone. She will benefit from a small property to which to return.
Of course, that small property does not have to be in the UK.
 
QUOTE "Are you considering stealing a boat as well?"

No, that would be theft. Don't be ridiculous.

Adverse possession has been around since the time of the Norman Conquest, in fact it was William the Conqueror who introduced it. Since then, the law has assumed that if you fail to look after the land you own you deserve to lose it. We have had that law for a 1000 years because society needs to have a mechanism to bring houses and property back into productive use. In England alone there are 600,000 homes sitting empty - see http://www.emptyhomes.com/
and a third of all land in the UK is unregistered. If all of the houses sitting empty in the UK were bought back into active use, the housing crisis would be substantially eased, and adverse possession is one of the mechanisms that can be used to ensure that happens.

That does not mean that you have to break into houses as part of the process - the law says that you must treat the land or property as your own. Most people but a sign on the outside of the house claiming ownership and leaving a phone number, and see if anyone calls it. If no-one does then after 12 years (in the case of unregistered land) it becomes yours. If someone does claim ownership you can then notify the council who the owner is, and they will then work with the owner to get the property back into productive use. So either way, the house should be turned into part of the national housing stock, rather than just sitting derelict, and personally I consider that a good thing.
 
Last edited:
RAI said:
It is likely that a wife will outlive her husband by many years and is less likely to want to continue sailing alone. She will benefit from a small property to which to return.
Of course, that small property does not have to be in the UK.
Click to expand...

Very true. I had a look at http://www.rightmove.co.uk/overseas...3;jsessionid=D58CA7318731DEEB408ADAB26A6C6FC2 a year or so ago and compared house prices in different countries, and property was substantially cheaper than the UK in a lot of cases, and often with a better climate.

If you are not that bothered about coming back to the UK you have a lot of options, and you will probably get a lot more bang for your buck. I saw a five bedroom house in Portugal that in the UK would cost you half a million quid at least, and it was being sold for 120,000 euros. OK, there will be trade offs for that, but the bottom line is that property in the UK is ridiculously expensive, and there are plenty of places in the world where you can put a roof over your head without breaking the bank. Like anything, it depends on your personal choices:)
 
Horses for courses. In the end each has to make up their own mind.

We have now been sort of liveaboards for 15 years and it is still working for us but no one can know the future.

When we first moved afloat we never intended to return to our house. Nevertheless, we rented it out with mixed success but as time went by we realised that the income we were realising was hardly breaking even with the costs so after 4 years we sold and invested the money, which at 6% pa, gave a much better return (no longer true!).

After awhile we realised we needed a bolt-hole in the UK so invested in a static caravan on a well run holiday site, with 12 month access, not that cheap but far less than retaining the house.

So here we are, winter in Iberia afloat as boat gypsies and spring/summer and early autumn in the UK as trailer trash (Oh yes we also have a small fun boat in the UK to keep our hands-in on those long balmy summers days - all 2 of them!).

Our family refer to us as posh pikies.

Still have all of the monies from the house invested and at the last look could still buy a house similar to the one we sold for less than we got (but that won't be true much longer). Most importantly we live within our income and still have enough for a couple of hotel based holidays a year.

We are now well into or seventies so what of the future? Don't know but am sure we will sort it when it happens.

Ps a word it the wise, be very aware of your status regarding the law.

A basic rule of thumb is you must do sufficient time in the UK to retain your 'UK rights of residency' and not long enough in any other country to fall foul of their (tax) residency rules. Can take a bit of juggling.
 
Last edited:
You can no longer (edit: easily) acquire title to land through "adverse possession", the law was changed in 2012 (IIRC, but it has definitely changed - I have reason to know this)

(In any case, even before the law changed, the mechanism was quite specific and you had to be in possession of the land, using it as your own land and actually making use of it, it had to be fenced off or bounded in such a way as to prevent access to the land by the rightful owner and, crucially, you had to do all this without the slightest even tacit consent from the owner - even a verbal conversation with the rightful owner along the lines of "well you can stay there for now" was enough to imply consent. And the final kicker, as you realise - you had to be in possession of the land for 12 consecutive years without a break)

A correction - just did some checking and it is still (just) possible to do it but the law is considerably weighted in favour of the rightful owner. Good luck with that one
 
Last edited:
Bru said:
You can no longer (edit: easily) acquire title to land through "adverse possession", the law was changed in 2012 (IIRC, but it has definitely changed - I have reason to know this)

(In any case, even before the law changed, the mechanism was quite specific and you had to be in possession of the land, using it as your own land and actually making use of it, it had to be fenced off or bounded in such a way as to prevent access to the land by the rightful owner and, crucially, you had to do all this without the slightest even tacit consent from the owner - even a verbal conversation with the rightful owner along the lines of "well you can stay there for now" was enough to imply consent. And the final kicker, as you realise - you had to be in possession of the land for 12 consecutive years without a break)

A correction - just did some checking and it is still (just) possible to do it but the law is considerably weighted in favour of the rightful owner. Good luck with that one
Click to expand...

The law was changed in 2012 and now it is almost impossible to claim adverse possession in the case of registered land as you have to write to the Land Registry after 10 years and they will then write to the owner and tell them what you are intending to do. Net result is don't bother trying to claim adverse possession for registered land. However, the old rules apply to unregistered land so it is still possible to claim adverse possession in the case of unregistered land. About a third of all land in the UK is still unregistered, and therefore potentially capable of being adversely possessed. The land registry have a detailed guidance note on how it works since the rules were changed in 2012.
 
nortada said:
Horses for courses. In the end each has to make up their own mind.

We have now been sort of liveaboards for 15 years and it is still working for us but no one can know the future.

When we first moved afloat we never intended to return to our house. Nevertheless, we rented it out with mixed success but as time went by we realised that the income we were realising was hardly breaking even with the costs so after 4 years we sold and invested the money, which at 6% pa, gave a much better return (no longer true!).

After awhile we realised we needed a bolt-hole in the UK so invested in a static caravan on a well run holiday site, with 12 month access, not that cheap but far less than retaining the house.

So here we are, winter in Iberia afloat as boat gypsies and spring/summer and early autumn in the UK as trailer trash (Oh yes we also have a small fun boat in the UK to keep our hands-in on those long balmy summers days - all 2 of them!).

Our family refer to us as posh pikies.

Still have all of the monies from the house invested and at the last look could still buy a house similar to the one we sold for less than we got (but that won't be true much longer). Most importantly we live within our income and still have enough for a couple of hotel based holidays a year.

We are now well into or seventies so what of the future? Don't know but am sure we will sort it when it happens.

Ps a word it the wise, be very aware of your status regarding the law.

A basic rule of thumb is you must do sufficient time in the UK to retain your 'UK rights of residency' and not long enough in any other country to fall foul of their (tax) residency rules. Can take a bit of juggling.
Click to expand...

Great tip and great post. Love the "posh pikies" nomiker.
 
BradleyC said:
The law was changed in 2012 and now it is almost impossible to claim adverse possession in the case of registered land as you have to write to the Land Registry after 10 years and they will then write to the owner and tell them what you are intending to do. Net result is don't bother trying to claim adverse possession for registered land. However, the old rules apply to unregistered land so it is still possible to claim adverse possession in the case of unregistered land. About a third of all land in the UK is still unregistered, and therefore potentially capable of being adversely possessed. The land registry have a detailed guidance note on how it works since the rules were changed in 2012.
Click to expand...

Hence my edit (I had forgotten some of the details as the matter of which I have knowledge dealt with registered land). Finding unregistered land is the "trick" and even then it's not an easy process by any means

Your figures are a bit off anyway, according to the Land Registry over 80% of land in England and Wales is registered and most of the remainder is the property of the Crown, the Church (of England mostly) or the aristocracy and is only unregistered because it has never changed hands since compulsory registration was introduced

Tangle with the Church over land issues and you will seriously regret it! Ditto the Crown. Both have massive legal departments that will run rings round you. If you can put one over on the aristocracy good luck to you though :D
 
Similarly the idea that 600000 houses standing empty can immediately be put into use is a pipe dream. The vast majority of these houses belong to somebody, often local authorities and are in some sort of transitional stage between being empty and redeveloped, or in places where nobody wants to live. It is the squatter mentality that believes that just occupying other peoples' property is a viable solution.

But off topic and only comes in because the OP is harbouring thoughts of "beating the system" to fulfil his childhood dream.
 
Bru said:
Hence my edit (I had forgotten some of the details as the matter of which I have knowledge dealt with registered land). Finding unregistered land is the "trick" and even then it's not an easy process by any means

Your figures are a bit off anyway, according to the Land Registry over 80% of land in England and Wales is registered and most of the remainder is the property of the Crown, the Church (of England mostly) or the aristocracy and is only unregistered because it has never changed hands since compulsory registration was introduced

Tangle with the Church over land issues and you will seriously regret it! Ditto the Crown. Both have massive legal departments that will run rings round you. If you can put one over on the aristocracy good luck to you though :D
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I'm not saying that it is easy to claim adverse possession - you need to know what you are doing and be prepared to spend a lot of time researching the history of the house or property. All I'm saying is that in certain circumstances it is possible to do and also a good way of converting derelict land into active housing stock.

I wouldn't touch Crown land - if you are talking about Crown land then you have to wait 30 years before you can adversely claim land, so that rules that out before you even start. The figures seem to vary depending on the source and whether you are talking about England or UK. The figure I quoted came from a Freedom of Information request made recently on how much land was unregistered, so technically that should be correct. It also depends on whether you are talking about unregistered land in the UK or unregistered land in England and Wales, as Scotland has a different legal regime when it comes to land.

If you are only looking for one plot or house, then that should be do-able but time consuming as you'll have to work your way through a lot of unsuitable property before you find one which might work. I know when i've been looking at it, that if I have a list of thirty possible abandoned or derelict properties, then probably only two will be unregistered and worth a closer look. So I'd say the percentage of unregistered land is probably between the two figures, and also varies depending on what region you are looking at.

As you say, finding unregistered land is the trick, but its not easy to do!
 
Carmel2 said:
As someone who has, my advise would be to hang onto it if it's rentable. If you need that sale to fulfill your future life afloat then sell.
Click to expand...

2nd that, we sold and regret, but could not do both. Would not want to not be sailing but wished we had found a way to sail and keep the house
 
Tranona said:
Similarly the idea that 600000 houses standing empty can immediately be put into use is a pipe dream. The vast majority of these houses belong to somebody, often local authorities and are in some sort of transitional stage between being empty and redeveloped, or in places where nobody wants to live. It is the squatter mentality that believes that just occupying other peoples' property is a viable solution.

But off topic and only comes in because the OP is harbouring thoughts of "beating the system" to fulfil his childhood dream.
Click to expand...

I'm not harbouring any thoughts of "beating the system" - these laws form part of the sytem, and they have been in place for a 1000 years because they serve a useful social function under certain limited circumstances. Nor am I saying that 600,000 houses standing empty can immediately be put to use but they certainly could and should be put to use over a period of time, rather than being allowed to deteriorate further. Given the current huge pressure on housing stock, landlords should be required to maintain the houses they own, rather than letting them fall into rack and ruin. According to Empty Homes, who campaign on this issue, it costs on average £15,000 to transform a property from derelict to habitable, and the government has recently made funding available so they can do exactly that, as they recognise that converting existing housing stock into habitable homes is one aspect of reducing housing pressure in England and Wales. They've also recently granted Councils the power to issue Empty Property Management Orders or even compulsory purchase orders if they remain empty for more than six months and they aren't maintained and are falling into disrepair. You can find more information on this at the Empty Properties leaflet http://www.sandwell.gov.uk/downloads/file/3376/empty_property_leaflet

although obviously different councils have different approaches to this issue. Or do you consider if a council uses thoses powers then they are just adopting a "squatters mentality"?
 
Sundowner Portofino said:
2nd that, we sold and regret, but could not do both. Would not want to not be sailing but wished we had found a way to sail and keep the house
Click to expand...

If I could do both, then I probably would, but the reality is we can't. Overall, I'm happy with that as a decision but I appreciate there may be circumstances where you could regret letting the house go, and I was curious to find out how many people had actually had those regrets materialise. A lot of people seem to love the life and just keep on going, and work things so they have a little nest egg which means they could buy a small retirement cottage somewhere if they needed to. Hopefully, that will be our experience too, but either way, its an informed and mutually agreed family decision.
 
BradleyC said:
If I could do both, then I probably would, but the reality is we can't. Overall, I'm happy with that as a decision but I appreciate there may be circumstances where you could regret letting the house go, and I was curious to find out how many people had actually had those regrets materialise. A lot of people seem to love the life and just keep on going, and work things so they have a little nest egg which means they could buy a small retirement cottage somewhere if they needed to. Hopefully, that will be our experience too, but either way, its an informed and mutually agreed family decision.
Click to expand...
Then the question comes down to "buy cottage now and let it, or, compete cottage price rises with nest egg investments?"
 
Interesting discussion this but nobody has mentioned pensions - so I will.

In one's forties and fifties one hopes to be in a position to chuck a bucket of money in to a pension fund. Otherwise we are reliant on £150/wk from the Gov't (if we qualify for full pension). Now that £150/wk is not a decent budget for the latter years of one's life. So, in addition to keeping the house for later years surely one also needs to be making a decent provision for pension? If off sailing that's a hard thing to do, so are folk going off and thinking to hell with the pension? Say £250k pension fund? Am I bonkers with that suggestion? Cloud cuckoo land?

Rob
 
Hi

Since retiring and sort of becoming a live aboard - admittedly only for 8 months a year (grand children!!) we have been pondering this issue. We have decided that we need to keep a foothold in the UK market and have downsized. It also gives us a bolt hole for visits back to the UK and helps with banks, health service etc. (we were removed from the NHS a few years ago thanks to a kind neighbour informing our GP that we were away long term)

Currently it is relatively easy to live anywhere in Europe - with reciprocal arrangements, health, residency etc, but I wonder what the situation will be should the referendum result take us out of Europe. 6 months max like our Aussie/US friends- no E111 etc etc.

May make it a bit more difficult living in a nice warm place.

People often seem to forget immigration is a 2 way process.

I have heard nothing about this in any of the 'debates'

Just a thought

Regards

Jim
 
RAI said:
Then the question comes down to "buy cottage now and let it, or, compete cottage price rises with nest egg investments?"
Click to expand...

Jam now or jam later - that is the question? There is no right or wrong on this as it partly comes down to whether you are a "seize the day" kind of character or a plan in advance person, or somewhere inbetween. Generally I would say if you can buy a cottage now and let it then why wouldn't you, but sometimes you need to get other things in place first (or you have different priorities at that time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top