Watching the news last night I was really pleased to hear that the government had announced a new scrappage scheme for old and inefficient boilers. Any boilers rated “G” (which I take to mean ‘crap’) are eligible to be replaced with the help of a £400 grant from the government. According to Direct.Gov, the grant will help up to 125,000 households in the UK which have G-rated boilers, helping them to save over £200 a year just by upgrading to a new, efficient model.

As a renter who has lived in possibly the coldest house in the country, I have a lot of sympathy for things like good insulation and lower fuel bills. Although I couldn’t apply for this grant myself, I’d certainly want my landlord to (although he doesn’t pay the bills so persuading him might be tricky!).

Anyway, it’s generally agreed that this grant is a Good Thing, but British Gas have said that they won’t be passing on the saving to their customers. According to the Times, British Gas already run their own discount scheme where customers get over £700 off a new boiler, radiator controls and servicing costs. Apparently, customers can either have the £400 grant, or have the normal discount, but they can’t have both.

Now, the discount that British Gas offers is great, but I don’t understand what harm it would do them to also pass on the government grant. I mean, the money is coming from the government, so it’s not like it’s costing British Gas anything. In fact, surely the grant is helping to push more people into getting a new boiler, which means more work for British Gas engineers.

Either way, there’s another incentive to upgrade your boiler and if I wasn’t a British Gas customer (and if I was a homeowner!) I’d apply for the grant. It’s a shame British Gas won’t let you apply for it and still get their discount, but the discount they offer already at least matches what you’d get from the grant. With winters this cold, an efficient boiler is certainly on the ‘must-have’ list!

The Financial Times asked a group of economists if they thought house prices were fair and the answers are pretty interesting. Although the concensus is that house prices are NOT fair, the reason that crops up again and again isn’t quite what I expected.

Factors like low interest rates and easy credit are blamed for facilitating the vast rise in prices over the last decade, and many of the economists juxtapose this against the unaffordability of houses. Even if you can get a mortgage many times your salary, that still means that your debt is disproportionate to what you earn.

It’s not easy credit that takes the prize for causing huge house prices however. It’s demand. High demand and lack of housing stock is the root cause of inflated prices according to the economists, and this is something that won’t be rectified in the short term. Remember what I said yesterday about all those new flats being built that nobody wants? Well, if they’d been houses or family homes, they might have gone some way towards solving the problem.

The Telegraph reported yesterday on some research by Savills that suggests house prices will remain stagnant over the next decade. The Savills report raised points such as; the house price bubble created by cheap credit over the last ten years; the huge amount of flats that remain empty; the inability of first-time buyers to get mortgages – all of which will put a halt on housing market recovery for a long time to come.

The figure I found most interesting was this – in 2000 the deposit needed by a first-time buyer was around 20% of income. Now, it’s more like 100% of income. That’s a huge leap, and one that puts property out of reach of a lot of people (myself included).

The only sector of the market that will see a recovery is that fuelled by equity-rich backers. Buy-to-let property for example is expected to see a boost, as those like myself are forced into renting, and cash-rich buyers snap up the properties we can’t afford.

Another interesting point is the reference the report makes to the new city-centre flats that seemed like such a good idea at the time. The Telegraph says that old housing has risen in value far more than new housing – probably because new housing has a reputation of being small, poorly-built and poorly-located for amenities (think of all the new flats in Leeds and then think how many supermarkets there are in the centre of town…just one?).

These new flats may be snapped up cheaply by investors, but will anyone want to live in them? Even if cash-rich buyers are in the best position to take advantage of the next decade, I think they need to invest wisely to make sure their properties will give a return on investment. I’d feel a little bit smug if, ten years from now, the flats had become slums and were cleared to make way for proper housing. Arguably this should have been done in the first place.

As for first-time buyers, well, ten years of house price stagnation may give us long enough to save up a deposit

The Office of Fair Trading have published a pretty scathing report that should have estate agents blushing with shame. According to the report, what we’ve suspected for years is true – estate agents really do lie to homebuyers on a frequent basis. I wish they’d asked me to take part in their study. The hassle caused by estate agent’s blatant lies over the course of my rental career could fill several blog posts.

Ranting aside however, it seems there is a genuine problem with inaccurate advertising on the part of estate agents. It’s not just saying the right thing to close a sale, it’s doctoring photos or completely omitting small details like the view of a nuclear power station.

The Office of Fair Trading report says that a third of sellers consider selling their home privately, with more people turning to online services to avoid using estate agents.

Although the report comes as no surprise, I’m really happy that the OFT have gathered actual data to quantify my years of hurt. It’s also great news for us as a website – we can guarantee an estate agent-free zone for all those disillusioned sellers out there

That’s the info coming from the Residential Landlord’s Association this week. They cite a report by Landlord Assist, who help landlords overcome problems like rental arrears – the report says that 150,000 tenants will face legal action because of rental arrears by the end of 2010. A staggering 75% of landlords said they’d had tenants fall into arrears in recent times – shocking figures even though we’re still in a recession.

I’ve been a tenant for longer than I care to think about, and never missed a payment. What I don’t understand is how such a vast proportion of landlords can have (I’m using the word loosely) problem tenants. After all, tenants go through credit checks, paying the rent is very important to tenants, and I find it hard to fathom that so many renters have fallen onto such hard times.

Having said that, the difficulty in obtaining a mortgage coupled with the recent (bizarre) rise in house prices is still pushing more people into renting. Not all renters will be financially sound. Does that equate to a problem for three-quarters of landlords…really?

If you’re a landlord with a story to tell, please leave a comment.

Zoopla, the property portal for estate agents, have been busy bees for the last few months. They acquired both Thinkproperty and Propertyfinder for undisclosed sums and are now integrating them into the main website, taking over their user bases in the process.

Zoopla seem to have taken a really aggressive strategy right from the start and it’s interesting after watching the start-up panel at A4uExpo last week. There’s a link I promise….

The panel at A4uExpo was dominated by Spotify and Seatwave, both of whom have VC-funding. Their start-up strategies were very different to what I’d consider ‘normal’ for a lot of entrepreneurs. Because of the funding, the management team were able to work on their projects full time – I gathered from their talks that they didn’t have day-jobs and they didn’t want for resources. Spotify even hired a whole class of development whizz-kids to get the platform off the ground.

Zoopla are also backed by two VC firms – Atlas Venture and Octopus Ventures. Of course, this funding might not have paid for their aggressive business strategy, but I bet it certainly helped

In general terms, VC funding seems to let you hire staff, pay for advertising and even buy competitors, all before earning a penny. Great for entrepreneurs, but don’t forget – the investors will want their money back!

I’ve always liked seeing what Zoopla do, just because they’re the most aggressive players in the marketplace today. With the backing they have, Rightmove should be worried!

We (my boyfriend and I) moved house a couple of weeks ago – slightly odd for twenty-somethings but we actually downsized from a house to a flat. Okay, the flat has nicer views and off-street parking, but with no garden shed or understairs-cupboard it was a challenge to find a space for all our stuff!

Only having a weekend in which to move (and having moved several times before), we simply hired a van from a local hire place, packed everything ourselves and moved it all with the help of some friends. It wasn’t easy but that’s the way we’ve always done it. It cost £55 for the enormous van, £10 for petrol, and all the cardboard boxes were free.

So what’s the advantage of using a removal company? Well, if you’re on your own and have furniture to move (and no friends nearby) I guess that would be one good reason. Another might be if you have a big house and there’s too much stuff to move in your time off work. Maybe you have children and nowhere to put them when you’re moving, in which case you can still look after them while someone else does all the work.

But what about cost? A quick Google brings up a ballpark cost for using a removal company of £400-£800, to move the contents of a 3-bedroom home locally. Compared to my £65 at the weekend, that’s a little bit steep!

So what’s your favourite way to move home – DIY or removal company? Why, and how much did it cost? Answers in the comments please

Ok… let’s get a few things straight. I’m 23, I’ve never owned a house, I’ve only just flown the nest, and the prospect of being a ‘grown up’ and renting is a scary one.

Feel like you know me?

No? Well, I’m 5 foot 2, and look suspiciously like the picture of me to the right.

Better?

Good.

So then, this new fangled property website comes along to me and asks me to write for them. Are you thinking what I’m thinking? Apart from rubbish puns, like the title, and inaccurate stick men self portraits, I have relatively little to offer, right?

Well I hope not, because otherwise this would be a very short article. I am “The first time buyer”. According to Google images, I look like this. Only we know that’s wrong. We’ve seen a picture of me, and I don’t own a tiny little house that I carry around with me. But tiny house, or no tiny house, I personally believe Estate Agents have this sixth sense when it comes to first time buyers. They smell the fear on us. They know that really we don’t have a big enough deposit saved up, they know we don’t know exactly what we’re looking for, and above all else, they know they can pull the wool over our eyes. However, with a shock of tangerine coloured hair like mine, the wool might be better served over their eyes.

So what has this article taught us?

1. I can’t draw very well in ‘Paint’
2. Estate agents have a very good sense of smell and…
3. I can’t even think of three worthwhile things to put in a list.

So now that you know me, you can, if you want to (I’m not forcing you, honest) follow my trials and tribulations on my quest to one day become a property owner. Hopefully I’ll learn something along this path.

If I don’t, I’ll just paint you pretty pictures.

P.S I would like to add that, unlike my drawing, in real life my head is attached to my body.

If the Conservatives win the next general election, they’ve vowed to scrap Home Information Packs. According to the BBC, Grant Shapps (the Shadow housing spokesman) has called HIPs ‘pointless red tape’ and said the Conservatives will simply get rid of them as part of a raft of changes to housing policy.

Is this a good idea? What do you think?

I’ve rented loads. Pretty much every single year since I was 18 I’ve rented a different house or flat, and this year is no different. This weekend I’ll be moving from my town-based terrace house, to a flat in a pleasant village about 10 miles away. The experience this time has not been a pleasant one – mainly because of problems with the estate agent’s advertising.

(Yes, I used an estate agent. I didn’t want to, but the flat I liked was only available through them )

The flat was advertised as furnished or unfurnished, ‘landlord is flexible’, so when I went to view the property I explained I had all my own furniture and would require it unfurnished. The agent said that was absolutely fine, and I made an offer.

Almost a week (!) later the agent came back and said the landlord would actually prefer to leave the flat furnished. In fact, they wouldn’t remove any furniture at all.

So, why was it advertised as unfurnished?

My own tale of woe isn’t the only one. I was reading today about the plight of a Londoner trying to rent a flat through an agent. The rent was advertised as £435/month, and they got as far as putting a deposit down before the agents called back and said the landlord actually wanted £450/month, and they’d just put the wrong number on the advert.

Now, I’m not sure how legal that situation is, but the fact is that estate agents appear to say whatever they must to get a tenant signed up. I wonder just how many adverts don’t actually tell you what the landlord’s terms really are. Of course, introducing a middleman can be like Chinese Whispers anyway, so can you really trust your agent to tell you the truth?