
Men get bigger gifts from the Bank of Mum and Dad
More than a third (42pc) of young men buying for the first time rely on gifts from friends and relatives to fund a deposit, compared to less than a fifth (17pc) of women.
Solo homeowners now account for a fifth of all households in England, with single men now the driving force behind the figure.
Research by Zoopla last year revealed just under two thirds of first-time buyers (63pc) had received financial help from family. Crucially, however, they found sons tended to receive £13,000 more than daughters.
Aneisha Beveridge, head of research at Hamptons, said: 'Greater access to family support for deposits may also be helping more men overcome affordability barriers and buy alone.'
A punishing rental market and shifting cultural norms have led to more people than ever before reaching for the independence and security of property, the latest English Housing Survey (EHS) shows.
Men's share of the market increased from 38.6pc to 43.8pc over the past 10 years, while women's declined from 61.4pc to 56.2pc.
Women have long outnumbered men within the group of those owning property alone, but the direction of travel is clear, as men threaten to dethrone women as the dominant force in solo ownership.
Beveridge added: 'For decades, women have led the solo homeownership trend – driven by gains in education, career progression and financial independence. But more recently, men have been catching up.
'It's not entirely clear what's driving this change, but this may reflect a cultural shift, with more men now viewing solo homeownership as a desirable and achievable milestone, rather than something to delay until partnered. Shifting life milestones could also be a factor behind why more men are choosing to buy a home alone.
'With more people going to university, many are renting for longer and delaying homeownership until they're settled in a stable job and location.
'At the same time, marriage and parenthood are happening later in life, meaning more people are buying homes alone rather than as couples. A higher rate of divorce has also contributed to the growing number of solo households.'
The increased cost of renting has also made solo ownership more appealing. Since the pandemic, rental costs have risen at a faster pace than house prices.
'I had this thing in my head that a mortgage had to be more [expensive] than rent, but it was actually less,' said software engineer, David Crompton, 37. He first bought with a partner in Newcastle in his mid-20s. The relationship ended shortly after, but he was eager to own again.
After saving for five years, he was eventually able to buy a three-bed in the city by himself. 'It just made more sense because [by paying down a mortgage] you're essentially paying yourself.'
However, for some buyers, there is more than just finances under consideration when looking to buy property.
Claire Holly, 39, a brand consultant, said: 'As a solo female buyer, the hardest part wasn't just affordability, it was finding somewhere I'd actually feel comfortable living alone.
'I started saving in my late-20s, knowing I'd need a big deposit to buy anything decent on a single salary in London. When I finally began looking three years ago, most of what I could afford was in areas I didn't feel comfortable or safe in, or too far from my friends, family and work.
'There's also the paradox of trying to save more while prices keep rising. At times, it felt like a never-ending loop.'
Holly was only able to buy in an area she felt safe after receiving a sum of money in her grandma's will.
For men, worries about safety from living in an up-and-coming area aren't always as much of an issue, potentially leading the way to cheaper properties that are easier to afford to buy alone.
Mark Scales, of estate agent Davies & Davies said: 'From conversations with clients and colleagues, we have noticed that it may be the less established areas that are more often considered by male solo buyers.
'Men may be more able to prioritise long-term growth potential over lifestyle factors such as community feel or perceived safety, which can give them access to a broader range of more affordable properties.
'Whilst not exhaustive by any means, this might provide some insight as to why male solo buyers are increasing in number.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
a minute ago
- Reuters
Proxy adviser tells Third Point Investors Ltd shareholders to vote against Malibu Life deal
LONDON, Aug 5 (Reuters) - Institutional Shareholder Services has recommended that shareholders in Third Point Investors Limited (TPOGu.L), opens new tab vote against a deal to acquire Malibu Life Reinsurance SPC, a report from the proxy adviser said on Tuesday. The proposed deal would "fundamentally change" the fund's investment case without offering minority shareholders an exit option at a fair price for their entire holdings, the report said. Third Point had no immediate comment on the recommendation. Third Point Investors Limited, which listed on the London Stock Exchange in 2007, said last month that it will acquire Malibu Life Reinsurance SPC, a life annuity reinsurer which billionaire Daniel Loeb launched last year. Shareholders have to vote on the deal on August 14. Loeb has proposed transforming his Third Point Investors Limited to address a valuation discount it has to his New York-based hedge fund Third Point. Third Point Investors (TPIL) would also move from being based in Guernsey to the Cayman Islands, change its name to Malibu Life Holdings Ltd, according to the ISS report. These changes would constitute a "reverse takeover" under UK Listing Rules, ISS said. Like other UK-listed investment companies, TPIL is known as a feeder fund and was originally designed to give retail shareholders a taste of hedge funds that had long been off limits to all but the wealthiest financiers. A dissenting shareholder group said the acquisition should be put to an independent vote. "Without Third Point and Dan Loeb's affiliated shares and votes, it is the Group's considered view that the transaction would not pass," the dissenting shareholder group said in a statement. It includes UK investment firm Asset Value Investors Limited, Metage Capital and Evelyn Partners Investment Management, as well as Australian investment firm Staude Capital and California-based Almitas Capital. The dissenting shareholder group said on Friday that it had contacted a further 10% of shareholders that it said oppose the deal. Reuters was not able to verify the identity of these shareholders or their intention to vote. TPIL said last month that it had irrevocable undertakings from shareholders holding 45% of the company's voting rights to back the deal, including Third Point Management, with 25%.


The Independent
2 minutes ago
- The Independent
Spotify's price is going up again, here are 6 cheaper music streaming services
Spotify is one of the most expensive music streaming services in the world, and it's about to get even pricier. On 4 August, Spotify announced it would be increasing prices in a number of regions, though it didn't elaborate on which countries would be affected. In a blog post, Spotify said individual premium subscriptions would be going up from €10.99 per month to €11.99 per month in September, including Europe, South Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and the Pacific. If the price hike comes to the UK, Spotify subscribers could be asked to pay £12.99 per month. The streamer already increased the price of an individual subscription by £1 last year to £11.99, and raised the price of its other plans, like the family and duo subscription, by £2 per month, leaving many disgruntled users looking for cheaper alternatives to the platform. According to Reuters, despite increasing its user base and subscriber numbers, Spotify is having to pay more tax on employee salaries, which is the reason for the price hike. If you've started looking at switching away from the music platform and want to cancel your Spotify Premium membership, we've rounded up the best, cheaper Spotify alternatives to subscribe to right now. Amazon Music Unlimited is the retail giant's premium music streaming service tier. With a subscription, you can listen to more than 100 million songs ad-free, offline and with unlimited skips. You also get access to Amazon Music's HD CD-quality tracks, lossless hi-res tracks and spatial audio. At the start of the year, Amazon hiked the price of its Amazon Music Unlimited streaming service, increasing the individual membership fee to £11.99, the same price as Spotify. But – and this is a big but – its individual subscription is £1 cheaper than Spotify's if you're subscribed to Amazon Prime (£10.99, and you get access to lossless audio. If you're a Prime member and don't subscribe to Amazon Music Unlimited, you get free access to all of Amazon Music's catalogue already, but you can only listen in shuffle mode and usually have to pick songs from Amazon's all-access music playlists. If you own a Fire TV stick or an Amazon Echo smart speaker, there is also a single-device subscription available for £5.99 a month. Individual plan: £10.99 per month Student plan: £5.49 per month Family plan: £16.99 per month (up to five additional members) Free trial: A one-month free trial is offered with a paid subscription Strip out all the cat videos, low-res vlogs and memes but keep all the songs, albums, remixes, live performances and music videos, then throw in some recommended playlists. That's YouTube Music Premium in a nutshell. If you subscribe to the service, you'll be able to play music in the background whenever your phone's screen is locked or you're using a different app. It also removes the ads and enables offline play. For an extra £2 per month (£1 more than Spotify Premium) you can get full YouTube Premium, which removes ads from all YouTube videos, watch using picture-in-picture mode, and listen to YouTube videos with your screen switched off. A subscription to YouTube Music Premium is cheaper than all of Spotify's plans, with the individual plan costing £1 less, and the family plan costing £3 less. Individual plan: £10.99 per month Student plan: £5.49 per month Family plan: £16.99 per month (up to six members) Free trial: A one-month free trial for new subscribers DJ extension: £9 extra on Individual and Student plans, for mixing music with stem separation Tidal sets itself apart as a streaming service with high-fidelity sound. The brainchild of the rapper Jay-Z, it bills itself as offering lossless music that sounds the way the artists intended it, and it pays artists one of the best fees per play. The streaming service features more than 110 million tracks, exclusive releases, interviews and music videos. Tidal simplified its pricing structure in April 2024, combining its two former tiers (HiFi and HiFi Plus) into a single subscription. All users pay £10.99 per month and get access to the platform's full suite of premium features, including high-fidelity FLAC audio, Master Quality Authenticated (MQA) tracks, and immersive formats like Dolby Atmos and Sony 360 Reality Audio, making it one of the best value music streaming services around. Last year, Tidal launched the DJ Extension, which lets users mix songs and separate stems, giving them access to enhanced BPM metadata within apps like rekordbox, Serato and DJ Pro. It costs an additional £9 on top of a regular Tidal subscription. Individual plan: £10.99 per month Student plan: £5.99 per month (with the first six months free) and a free subscription to Apple TV+ Family plan: £16.99 per month (up to six members) Free trial: A one-month free trial is available for new members, and six months free with the purchase of an eligible device Apple Music is, unsurprisingly, Apple's ad-free music streaming service. It has more than 100 million tracks, over 30,000 curated playlists, live radio and original shows, concerts and exclusives. Its entire catalogue can be listened to in lossless hi-res audio, and spatial audio can be enabled on its tracks. You can download up to 100,000 songs to play offline, and you also get access to Apple Music Classical – the new classical-only service – as well as Apple Music Sing, which is Apple's karaoke mode. In October 2022, Apple increased the price of its Apple Music subscription. An individual membership currently costs £1 less than a Spotify individual membership, while the family tier is £3 cheaper. It's good to note that you do get lossless hi-res audio and spatial audio with Apple Music, and students get a subscription to Apple TV+ for free. There is, of course, the Apple One subscription, which gives you up to six Apple subscriptions for one lower monthly price, including up to 2TB of iCloud+ storage and access to Apple Music. Individual plan: £11.99 per month (£8.99 per month if paid annually) Student plan: £5.99 per month Duo plan: £15.99 per month (£14.58 per month paid annually) Family plan: £19.99 per month (£18.25 per month paid annually), up to five additional members Free trial: A one-month free trial for new users In an alternate reality, Deezer could have been the Spotify of today, having launched a year before the Swedish company and featuring the same rich library of music and features. Deezer is free if you're prepared to put up with the ads, but the good stuff is all in its premium tier. It has more than 90 million tracks, and Deezer Premium gets rid of the ads, adds offline listening and high-fidelity FLAC audio, which Spotify lacks. As well as music, there are podcasts and radio stations, personalised recommendations and a Shazam-style SongCatcher feature to help identify tracks around you. Deezer also works on smartwatches, smart speakers and car audio systems. While Deezer is as expensive as Spotify, if you pay for a full-year subscription, you'll get a 25 per cent discount, making it significantly cheaper than Spotify. SoundCloud Go plan: £5.99 per month SoundCloud Go+ plan: £10.99 per month Student plan: Go+ for £5.49 per month Free trial: 7-day trial with Go, 30-day trial with Go+ Underground music fans will be very familiar with the music distribution platform SoundCloud. Launched in 2007, SoundCloud is a music streaming service for music producers, independent up-and-coming artists, podcast producers and their listeners, hoping to discover new music. It also has a giant library of 180 million tracks, mostly uploaded directly by artists. There are two premium SoundCloud tiers. SoundCloud Go costs £5.99 per month – it gets rid of all the ads and you get unlimited offline downloads. However, Go+ costs £10.99 per month and gets you access to SoundCloud's entire library, as well as higher-quality audio. SoundCloud Go+ is still significantly cheaper than Spotify. While it doesn't have a family plan, there is a student plan for £5.49 per month. The Go+ plan also lets you listen on up to three devices at once.


BBC News
3 minutes ago
- BBC News
Legal case a 'seismic confrontation' between players and Fifa
"A seismic legal confrontation between players and Fifa."The view of former Fulham midfielder-turned-lawyer Udo Onwere when asked to assess the significance of the compensation claim launched against Fifa this week on behalf of current and former professional footballers over transfer Monday, Dutch foundation Justice for Players (JFP) said it had started a class action lawsuit against the sport's world governing body, along with the football associations of France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and argues that 100,000 footballers playing in Europe since 2002 could have lost income as a result of "unlawful" Fifa regulations, and that "preliminary analysis" shows that damages could amount to several billion case is the result of last year's ruling by the highest European court that Fifa regulations over some football transfers broke EU October, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) found in favour of former Chelsea and Arsenal midfielder Lassana Diarra after he argued some of the rules restricted his freedom of movement and breached competition law, and sued Fifa."This class action could rewrite the rules governing player mobility across the global football industry" says Onwere, who is now a partner at law firm Bray and Krais."What distinguishes this case from previous skirmishes with the governing body is its sheer scale and complexity... The outcome of this litigation could usher in a new era of transfer regulations and governance - one where contractual stability is balanced with player autonomy."It could prove to be as transformational as the landmark 1995 Bosman ruling."Such a comparison is notable, because JFP is being advised by Diarra's Belgian lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont, who also won the landmark 1995 case at the CJEU on behalf of ex-player Jean-Marc ruling dramatically changed the sport, meaning footballers could choose to run down their contracts and move clubs on a free transfer, with teams no longer able to demand compensation for out-of-contract years on, some now believe this latest case could result in players being able to terminate their own contracts, without paying compensation, before those deals come to an Sport has been told that Fifa has until the start of September to respond to the threat of legal action. Background Last year, the CJEU said that, by refusing to provide Diarra with an international transfer certificate (ITC) for a proposed move to Belgian club Charleroi in 2015 after he was found to have breached his contract with Lokomotiv Moscow (for which he was ordered to pay £8.4m to the Russian club and suspended), Fifa showed that its rules "impede the free movement of professional footballers wishing to develop their activity by going to work for a new club".Diarra's lawyers contested the Fifa rule which makes a club wishing to sign a player jointly liable for compensation to a player's old club, and at risk of sporting sanctions, in cases where the player's previous contract was terminated without just also challenged a rule which allows the national association of a player's former club to withhold an ITC where there was a dispute, which they said also hindered the court ruled that Fifa should not be able to use the ITC system to prevent players who have breached a contract from moving and working where they the time Fifa said it had been "continuously improving" the transfer system "for the benefit of players, clubs, leagues and member associations, to ensure that players can train, be developed and have stability, while safeguarding the integrity of competitions by implementing a robust regulatory framework for the international transfer system".It then adapted its transfer regulations on an interim basis, but accepted they could be open to challenge. JFP claims that affected professional footballers have earned approximately 8% less over the course of their career as a result of Fifa's rules, and its litigation could mean players can terminate their own contracts. 'A huge hit' Lucia Melcherts, the chair of JFP, said: "All professional football players have lost a significant amount of earnings due to the unlawful Fifa regulations. In any other profession, people are allowed to change jobs voluntarily. The same should be true in football, particularly as the average career span of a professional footballer according to a FIFPro study is only eight years long.""FIFA will find it difficult to put forward a robust defence to these claims in the face of a clear decision by the CJEU in the Diarra case that there was anti-competitive behaviour over several years", says Daniel Gore, an arbitration lawyer at Withers."The anticipated floodgate of claims has commenced, and Fifa's finances could take a huge hit at a time they are flying high after the expanded Club World Cup this year and World Cup in 2026."In a statement, the European division of global players' union Fifpro, which backed Diarra's case, said the action "represents the anticipated practical response" to the CJEU ruling, "effectively centralising advocacy for affected players' interests that have broad implications for the football industry".It said it would "thoroughly assess" the foundation's move, adding it "will always support fair compensation for affected players whose rights were breached, while driving meaningful reform towards inclusive governance structures in international football."This approach aims to shield past, current and future generations of players from unilateral and arbitrary decision-making processes that undermine or harm fundamental workers' rights and fair competition."Fifa has been approached for comment.