Rented normally, it costs you £326 a month. That is £3,912 a year, every year you hold it.

Will it pay?Calculator

You top up £326 a month — the mortgage takes 94p of every pound of rent

Borrowing £60,184 less would close that shortfall — which is £60,184 more cash at the start, on top of the deposit.

£894 mortgage

£952 rent in£326 short

◧ market rent £952 · 23 comps2 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

£73,900 + refurb costs

And about £19,560 more over five years, because it loses £326 every month you hold it — before any repair. That already assumes the rent never falls.

£73,900 to buy it

deposit · stamp duty · solicitor · fees~£16,775, unseen

□ works not inspected

What would have to be true?The working

£80,000 off and it stops losing money

At the asking price you feed it £326 a month. At £139,734 the rent covers everything — leaving stamp duty of £7,281 at that price.

offer £139,734

asked £220,000

◧ worked back from the rent■ stamp duty re-bandedrounded down to £5,000 — the rent it works back from is an estimate

What will the rent borrow?Lender test

The rent carries £101,008 of the £165,000 loan

That £63,992 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 £47,831. Lenders test the rent at 7.5% and need it to cover 145% of the payment.

£1,495 needed

more than the £915 rent

stressed at 7.5%, 145% cover

◧ rent after empty weeks £915PRA-style test

Who has to say yes?Council record

Blackpool council approves 20% — 6% on a cautious reading

A council-wide rate across 10 HMO decisions, not a forecast for this address.

20%

0%50%100%

never approvesalways approves

the band is the cautious reading of the same 10 decisions — as low as 6%

■ Article 4 — planning permission requireddecision record held for this authority

How big is it, really?The plan

One figure, and nothing checking it 1,184 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

No school rated Good or better in this postcode area

1 school in this postcode area, none rated Good or better and flood risk checking… — open for the map, the schools and the rest.

Article 4Planning permission required to let by the room

■ postcode area, not this address

What could kill thisThe checks

The council here has taken away the automatic right to rent this out by the room

You would have to apply for permission first, and the council can say no.

2 problems found · 1 came back clear · 6 we could not check

■ from the Article 4 maplisting last seen 14 Sep 2026

Which strategy wins?The ways to run it

Every way loses money — Rent by the room loses least, at £23 a month

Let it to the council: £2,220 a year less, but they keep paying when it is empty.

Rent by the room−£23 · £116,675 in

Standard rental−£326 · £90,675 in

Guaranteed council rent−£511 · £90,675 in

Housing-benefit rent−£635 · £90,675 in

Each row: money kept a month, then the cash it ties up. Not compared: 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)

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

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

−£28,301 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 27% in the price would leave nothing from a sale after selling costs, and you would still owe the lender any shortfall. That is the £90,675 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