Rental issue

Sharee · Apr 08, 2008 10:58 am

Hi all, wondering if I can get your opinion on my latest issue, My husband and I have recently sold our house and are about to start building another, in the meantime though we have to rent. We have been offered two rental properties with the same weekly rent. One is absolutely hideous (just really horrible and gaudy on the inside think pink walls, apricot kitchen, 70s brown bathroom, stickers on the wall) the other is much nicer but if we want that one we have to start paying rent straight away. So basically for the nicer property it is going to cost us $600 extra. I am willing to do this as i just wouldn't feel comfortable in the ugly house for 6 months, my husband thinks I am being ridiculous. What does everyone else think, am I just being precious and wasting money? I am interested to hear your honest opinions.

stonecutter1309 · Apr 08, 2008 11:08 am

I'd go for the nicer place. I could not stand living in a dump - we paid an extra $20 per week to stay in a rental that's modern and clean.

Paula · Apr 08, 2008 11:16 am

Go for the nicer place, you will be much happier there. It is worth $600 to be content

Also, your build may go over 6 months, so you will be in a nice place.

bec · Apr 08, 2008 11:18 am

building is hard enough without living in a crappy place whilst you build
go the nice one for absolute sure!

haywgl · Apr 08, 2008 12:14 pm

I'm with the girls on this one - the nicer one all the way

royalblue · Apr 08, 2008 12:20 pm

People are too precious! Unless the cheaper place is smelly, dirty, or less than safe to live in, go there!

Besides, the extra $600 will be gone after 6 months, whereas that $600 could buy a nice feature in your home that you can enjoy for many years.

Ash.

haywgl · Apr 08, 2008 12:30 pm

I'm not precious I just wouldn't want me or my family (esp my children) living in a home I wasn't comfortable in.

Sharee has described the home as 'hideous' so to me spending $600 to live in a nicer home for the better half of a year is no big deal.

vanderlay · Apr 08, 2008 12:34 pm

it probably depends what $600 is worth to you!! There are sooooo many things to spend money on when you move in to a new house....but if you have plenty of $$$$ then it wont bother you that much!

perryr · Apr 08, 2008 12:36 pm

I'd probably go for the nicer place. Do the maths - it's an extra $100 per month when you work it out.

Of course if you are building with some builders (see other threads in the forum) your build may take longer, and you might wind up renting for longer - then you'll be glad you got the nice place.

Sharee · Apr 08, 2008 12:59 pm

Thanks guys. It really is a tough call there is better things to spend $600 on (we definitely don't have plenty of $$$ Vanderlay!) and part of me definitely thinks I'm being a bit wasteful with this decision but I've decided we're going to go for the nicer house (I get to overrule my husband on this one as I'm the one who has to be in it most!). The house were about to move out of is our first home and I think were going to be really sad when we leave anyway, and for me the clincher is when I imagine living in the cheaper house I feel really horrible whereas I don't feel like that with the one we've decided to take, I guess whatever makes it easier is worthwhile. I also have a 16 month old son and the nicer house has a layout that is more conjusive to keeping him out of trouble!

vanderlay · Apr 08, 2008 1:06 pm

Sharee

The house were about to move out of is our first home and I think were going to be really sad when we leave anyway, and for me the clincher is when I imagine living in the cheaper house I feel really horrible whereas I don't feel like that with the one we've decided to take,

then you made the right decision!

Paula · Apr 08, 2008 4:56 pm

Good on you Sharee.

Mikita · Apr 08, 2008 10:06 pm

We this dilemma too and ended up going with the cheaper one....and still here. It's really ordinary with an oven from the 1950s but we figured it was better to spend the money on the new house rather than a temporary one. We've been here for 7 months now and like most things, after a while you adjust. PLUS we think about how much more we will appreciate the brand new house!

ahuang · Apr 12, 2008 8:12 pm

Is that $600 one off or every month or every week?

Any way, my advice for the husband:
If budget is not an issue, go with the cleaner/nicer one.
If budget is an issue, cut down your BBQ, ciguarette, beer & friday night out drinks, and still go with the cleaner/nicer one.

For the wife:
If budget is not an issue, go with the cleaner/nicer one.
If budget is an issue, still go with the cleaner/nicer one. Start nagging/whinging to your husband everyday, and he will fix everything...

piranha · Apr 13, 2008 7:34 pm

maybe keep looking, we are in the same boat right now viewed a crappy one in a ******* area rent only $260 but prefer to pay $320 for the brand new house in a slightly better area, kept looking though have found a few brand new & near new homes for about $290-300 that works well for us.

We are fortunate enough to have worked out a deal with the buyers that allows us to stay here for 3 months after the sale to find our own place so we have the luxury of time.

DeeElle · Apr 13, 2008 8:31 pm

We moved into a daggy rental when we sold our lovely house by the beach :shock:

. For the first 6 months I absolutely despised the rental property, and regretted not moving to a nicer place. I would have paid more if I thought it wasn't a waste of money

.

12 months later and I don't think it would have mattered where we lived ... as long as it was reasonably clean and the neighbourhood was ok. Time has passed swiftly and we will be moving again as soon as this lease has run out as the owner wants it back.

So IMO I'd go with the cheaper one ... you need all the spare cash you can get and time flies ... before you know it the lease is over and you are in your new home .

IMHO :wink:

Eager · Apr 13, 2008 10:08 pm

I agree with most of the posters here, go for the nicer house. Budget or not, $600 is a drop in the ocean compared to building or buying a new house.

piranha

We are fortunate enough to have worked out a deal with the buyers that allows us to stay here for 3 months after the sale to find our own place so we have the luxury of time.

Actually, we made that a firm condition of sale, to lease back for as long as we needed until our new house is ready. The consequence was that it took 4 months to sell, because we virtually had to have it marketed to investors, but at least we don't have to move twice. The buyer is happy too. He's working over in W.A. and doesn't care if we stay here for up to 12 months!

Settlement is May 20th and we have an initial 4 month lease, with a month-by-month option after that. If the new house is on schedule the initial lease will cover it anyway, with a bit of overlap. The advantage there is that we won't have to move everything in one day.

piranha · Apr 14, 2008 1:40 am

Hey eager,

That was our original plan to rent it back of buyers as condition of sale so we didnt have to move but after a while on the market with little interest we decided to be more flexibl. A newlywed couple purchased and wanted to live in so we agreed on 3 months realising we really had no idea how long it would take us to build (owner builder) plus as we sold through reddirect.com.au we saved about $10k in agent fee's so we were happy.

Eager · Apr 14, 2008 9:02 am

Yeah, saving money came in to the calculations a bit for us too. If there was another advantage to the house not selling earlier, it's we don't have to pay rent for as long. But the downside is that we have to use more of the banks money instead of our own in the meantime for progress payments. I guess they kind of cancel each other out.