Rented normally, it costs you £1,052 a month. That is £12,630 a year, every year you hold it.

Will it pay?Calculator

The mortgage alone costs more than the whole rent — you top up £1,052 a month

It is £1,052 a month short. Borrowing £194,307 less would close that shortfall — which is £194,307 more cash at the start, on top of the deposit.

£2,011 mortgage

£1,666 rent in£1,052 short

£175 of that is a guess — no service charge published.

□ service charge not published2 empty weeks a year assumed

What if I change my assumptions?The dials

At the asking price, 25% deposit, 6.50% charged

Change any of these 16 and every card on this page changes with it. The 6.50% is the 5.75% quoted plus a company premium.

◧ worked out from local rents

What will it cost me to buy?Breakdown

£197,150 + refurb costs

And about £63,150 more over five years, because it loses £1,052 every month you hold it — before any repair. That already assumes the rent never falls.

£197,150 to buy it

deposit · stamp duty · solicitor · fees~£1,650, unseen

□ works not inspected

What would have to be true?The search

No offer makes this pay

Even at £297,000 — well below the £495,000 asked — the rent still does not cover the costs. The gap is the rent against the running costs, not the price, so negotiating does not close it.

◧ worked back from the rent■ LBTT re-bandedtested down to £297,000

Is the price right?The deeds

Last sold for £352,500 in 2017

Nothing nearby is comparable, but asking is 40% more than the £352,500 paid for it in 2017.

□ this address’s own deeds, no comparable saleHM Land Registry Price Paid Data

What will the rent borrow?Lender test

The rent carries £176,764 of the £371,250 loan

That £194,486 is yours to find on top of the deposit. Tested at 125% instead of 145% — a company or a basic-rate taxpayer usually is — the gap is £166,204. Lenders test the rent at 7.5% and need it to cover 145% of the payment.

£3,364 needed

more than the £1,602 rent

stressed at 7.5%, 145% cover

◧ rent after empty weeks £1,602PRA-style test

How big is it, really?The plan

One figure, and nothing checking it 1,175 sq ft

Only the agent’s figure exists for this house. Open for what that means.

□ area unchecked — agent’s own

Is it a good location?Open the map

Nearest stop up to 1.5 km away

More than nine in ten listings we cover have one closer — and that is a straight line, not the walk.

Article 4Not assessed for this address

■ postcode area, not this address■ nearest stop in our data□ kind of stop not recordedstraight-line distance, not the walk

What to know before you offerThe checks

Every tenancy here is periodic, with no Section 21 to end it

Tenancies are now periodic, with no Section 21 — budget a longer void.

1 problem found · 2 came back clear · 3 we could not check · 3 do not apply to this property

■ from the Renters’ Rights Act 2025listing last seen 15 Sep 2026

Which strategy wins?The ways to run it

Every way loses money — Standard rental loses least, at £1,052 a month

Let it to the council: £5,112 a year less, but they keep paying when it is empty.

Standard rental−£1,052 · £198,800 in

Guaranteed council rent−£1,478 · £198,800 in

Housing-benefit rent−£1,684 · £198,800 in

Each row: money kept a month, then the cash it ties up. Not compared: Rent by the room (only 2 bedrooms) · Do it up, then remortgage (pays back at the remortgage) · Short-stay let (no local short-let data) · Buy, improve & sell (pays out on sale)

◧ 3 ways, one measureranked on money kept each month, at the asking price

What would you walk away with?The five-year sums

−£104,446 after five years on the cash you put in, before tax on the sale

Less than the same cash would have made in a savings account, after tax on the interest. The savings account’s capital is not at risk; the property’s is. A fall of about 23% in the price would leave nothing from a sale after selling costs, and you would still owe the lender any shortfall. That is the £198,800 you put in. The 5-year fix runs past this 5-year hold, so the rate reset comes after it.

◧ 2.0%/yr growth assumed