Rented normally, it costs you £557 a month. That is £6,684 a year, every year you hold it.

Will it pay?Calculator

The mortgage alone costs more than the whole rent — you top up £557 a month

It is £557 a month short. Borrowing £102,829 less would close that shortfall — which is £102,829 more cash at the start, on top of the deposit.

£1,219 mortgage

£1,070 rent in£557 short

◧ market rent £1,070 · 22 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

£102,632 + refurb costs

And about £33,420 more over five years, because it loses £557 every month you hold it — before any repair. That already assumes the rent never falls.

£102,632 to buy it

deposit · stamp duty · solicitor · fees~£20,539, unseen

□ works not inspected

What would have to be true?The search

No offer makes this pay

Even at £179,970 — well below the £299,950 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■ stamp duty re-bandedtested down to £179,970

What will the rent borrow?Lender test

The rent carries £113,528 of the £224,963 loan

That £111,435 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 £93,270. Lenders test the rent at 7.5% and need it to cover 145% of the payment.

£2,039 needed

more than the £1,029 rent

stressed at 7.5%, 145% cover

◧ rent after empty weeks £1,029PRA-style test

Who has to say yes?Council record

Sunderland council approves 70% — 40% on a cautious reading

A council-wide rate, not a forecast — and Sunderland council refuses schemes that sandwich a family home. Check both neighbours.

70%

0%50%100%

never approvesalways approves

the band is the cautious reading of the same 10 decisions — as low as 40%

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

How big is it, really?The plan

The rooms are on the plan; the total is not

The plan is on file; the floor area is not.

□ no floor area published

Is it a good location?Open the map

No school rated Good or better in this postcode area

3 schools 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 · 2 came back clear · 4 we could not check · 1 does not apply to this property

■ from the Article 4 maplisting last seen 02 Sep 2026

Which strategy wins?The ways to run it

Every way loses money — Standard rental loses least, at £557 a month

Let it to the council: £1,416 a year less, but they keep paying when it is empty.

Standard rental−£557 · £123,171 in

Rent by the room−£614 · £123,171 in

Guaranteed council rent−£675 · £123,171 in

Housing-benefit rent−£907 · £123,171 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

−£47,074 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 26% in the price would leave nothing from a sale after selling costs, and you would still owe the lender any shortfall. That is the £123,171 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