Rented normally, it costs you £698 a month. That is £8,376 a year, every year you hold it.

Will it pay?Calculator

The mortgage alone costs more than the whole rent — you top up £698 a month

It is £698 a month short. Borrowing £128,867 less would close that shortfall — which is £128,867 more cash at the start, on top of the deposit.

£1,727 mortgage

£1,592 rent in£698 short

◧ market rent £1,592 · 12 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

£148,274 + refurb costs

And about £41,882 more over five years, because it loses £698 every month you hold it — before any repair. That already assumes the rent never falls.

£148,274 to buy it

deposit · stamp duty · solicitor · fees~£19,458, unseen

□ works not inspected

What would have to be true?The search

No offer makes this pay

Even at £254,997 — well below the £424,995 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 £254,997

What will the rent borrow?Lender test

The rent carries £168,912 of the £318,746 loan

That £149,834 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 £122,808. Lenders test the rent at 7.5% and need it to cover 145% of the payment.

£2,889 needed

more than the £1,531 rent

stressed at 7.5%, 145% cover

◧ rent after empty weeks £1,531PRA-style test

Who has to say yes?Council record

County Durham council approves 0% — 0% on a cautious reading

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

0%

0%50%100%

never approvesalways approves

the band is the cautious reading of the same 3 decisions — as low as 0%

■ 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

Durham, DH1 2DX

5 of 5 schools in this postcode area rated Good or Outstanding 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

You would need a licence from the council first

Letting without the council’s licence is an offence, and the fee is in no figure here.

3 problems found · 1 came back clear · 5 we could not check

■ from council licensing registerlisting last seen 17 Sep 2026

Which strategy wins?The ways to run it

Every way loses money — Standard rental loses least, at £698 a month

Let it to the council: £7,836 a year less, but they keep paying when it is empty.

Standard rental−£698 · £167,732 in

Rent by the room−£776 · £167,732 in

Guaranteed council rent−£1,351 · £167,732 in

Housing-benefit rent−£1,495 · £167,732 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

−£60,734 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 25% in the price would leave nothing from a sale after selling costs, and you would still owe the lender any shortfall. That is the £167,732 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