You are reading a single comment by @christianSpaceman and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
B was what my parents did when similar happened to my grandparents. I don't know if there was any reason for doing that other than the fact that the rent was sufficient to cover home costs. If you can do it relatively easily, it at least defers the decision on selling I imagine.
In terms of C Vs D, I'd expect a discount on a home needing a lot of work (C) simply to compensate me for the risk - I wouldn't know what state the wiring / planing etc was in. I suspect that that discount I'd want may be greater than the cost of a simply renovating the house (D).
christianSpaceman
My nan has moved into a home and won't be going back to her house again.
My parents are trying to work out what to do with her place - either the rental income or sale cost are needed for the care home.
The house definitely needs a lot of work - rewiring, old polystyrene tiles ripped out and new ceilings, new carpets, new kitchen at the very least.
The options would be:
A) Rent out as is
B) Refurbish and rent out
C) Sell as is
D) Refurbish and sell
Option A seems unlikely, B seems the most sensible. The place is in Chingford which is increasingly where Walthamstow price exiles are heading (but my parents aren't, so I will probably have to do a lot of the organisation).
If they decided to sell, I would rather buy a house that was a C than a D - but I know that discussion has been had in here before and that opinions are mixed, and I guess society at large would probably rather a neutrally-renovated house than a fixer-upper.
I don't really know what to advise them - I think B, unless there are strong opinions otherwise?