I sold my £140k flat and started renting in my sixties – I save £12,000 a year and don't pay energy bills
HANDING the final paperwork to the conveyancing solicitor completing the sale of his £140,000 two-bedroom flat Ian Horton, feels a wave of relief.
After months of stress, Ian is swapping home ownership for renting as a property guardian at the age of 61 to beat the high cost of living and save for his impending retirement.
6
6
6
6
'I sold my flat due to Covid and skyrocketing energy costs,' Ian said.
'If I kept the flat, I'd face a debt crisis caused by rising electricity, fuel, and household bills.'
Now Ian is renting as a property guardian living in a pub in London's commuter belt.
He pays just £350 a month including electricity, water and council tax, saving £1,000 a month, or £12,000 a year compared to owning his own home.
'It's a miracle cure for OAPs battling the cost of living,' Ian said.
'I could never have done that if I hadn't sold my two-bed flat in my sixties.
'It may sound bonkers but becoming a property guardian is the best financial decision I ever made.'
Self-employed courier Ian lives behind the bar in the former hotel in Bedford, Bedfordshire - an hour and a half outside of London with his partner Maureen, 61.
The retired admin staffer and Ian pay £350 each as part of their property guardian rent.
They're among 10,000 people in Britain who have become property guardians due to the rising cost of living, the rental crisis and property shortages.
P roperty guardians live in an empty building or part of a building that would otherwise be empty to ensure it is not broken into and safeguarded.
In return, guardians like Ian get to rent the property at up to 70% below its market value often with the cost of gas, electric, water and council tax included.
When Ian first heard about the scheme through a friend, he knew it was the 'miracle cure' he needed to be able to cut costs and save for retirement.
Ian said: 'I know people will say selling a property at my age to start renting again is crazy at my age.
'I discovered it's not bonkers but bankable because being a property guardian actually covers your costs and allows you to rent amazing properties at a tiny fraction of market value.
'It made the decision to sell my two-bed first floor flat so much easier,' he said.
The self-employed courier and former postie bought his two-bedroom leasehold flat in Dunstable, Bedfordshire, in 2006 for £100,000.
'Like most people my age I was told buying was critical to retirement.
'But when the lockdown hit and energy prices and food costs started skyrocketing, I knew I had to find a solution to making the money I earned stretch further if I ever was to retire.'
Ian admits he was terrified about skyrocketing gas and electric prices.
As a courier Ian was also hit with escalating fuel costs.
How Ian's costs changed after becoming a guardian
WHEN Ian sold his flat in 2022, he was paying £300 a month for his mortgage, £50 for electricity, £30 for water and his council tax was £100 with a single person's discount.
Ian also had to stump up £100 a month leasehold fee for his flat and budget another £50 a month for extra leasehold fees including roofing and emergency funds.
His other monthly fees include Wi-Fi at £25 a month, phone bill of £30, groceries cost £150 and fuel was more than £300.
Plus, he was paying property and vehicle insurance costs of over £200 a month, £100 for repairs and £100 in parking costs.
In total, Ian was faced with monthly costs of almost £1,900 a month.
After moving to the pub, he pays £900 a month including all living costs, fuel, insurance on his van and accommodation.
Ian's new home
As Ian completed the £140,000 sale of his two-bedroom flat in 2022, he also applied to be a property guardian.
He signed up with Live in Guardians, which works with property owners and potential guardians to find the right property for the right person.
'I filled out a questionnaire, provided my renting history, exchanged questions and was acccepted,' Ian said.
'It was like applying to rent a property. I didn't need any special skills.
'The fact I was older, had owned property and was dependable was a big bonus for me.
'Once I was approved to be a guardian on their books, I got to apply for the range of properties they had on offer,' he says.
His new home is a pub earmarked for redevelopment, but Ian can live there until redevelopment begins which isn't expected for at least two years.
Ian said: 'Live in Guardians can find me a new property whenever I want.
'They have properties all over the country from old fire stations to former nursing homes, pubs, posh houses and form office blocks available as a place to call home.'
The traditional British pub with the familiar white facade, dark brick tints and red door has leaded glass windows, an original bar, wood floors and fireplaces.
There are four rooms available to rent, but Ian said they don't always see the other guardians.
Included in Ian's rent is the gas, electric, heating, water, council tax, insurances, parking costs and hotel repairs.
Ian and Maureen have got their own Wi-Fi for £35 a month, but they share a big kitchen and bathroom and separate toilets.
In return for the cheap rent, Ian keeps Live in Guardians informed of any repairs which need doing until developers begin their work.
Ian said: 'The energy bills are thrown in. I can enjoy a long shower and turn on the food whenever I want.
'It's a huge relief to not worry about the electric or gas bill.
'Before I was a property guardian, the cost of living meant I had to stop making monthly private pension payments so that on top of my government pension means I can have a little extra.
'It's not a huge amount but just being able to make monthly payments means I can breathe again.
'The fear of monthly bills has gone, and I can budget sensibly.
'I don't know when I will retire. I know it's years off.
'I do know when I finally stop working it will be possible thanks to living locally at 'my local.'
Live in Guardians says it has 700 guardians currently in properties, although it has 32,500 in its database alongside £500million worth of property.
Property terms can range from three months to seven years.
Arthur Duke, its managing director, said: 'People are seeking out new and affordable places to live.
'We also have more companies than ever before wanting us to provide live in property guardians to stop their empty properties being scattered in, vandalised or not properly being cared for,
Property guardianship agencies say the scheme allows businesspeople to pay reduced insurance and maintenance costs, generate an income on the empty premises, diversify its portfolio, and ensure the properties are well cared for.
How to become a property guardian
First research the different property guardian agencies.
It's also important to know you're not a tenant.
Instead you're a licensee which can mean fewer rights, and that it's easier to be evicted.
You'll need to be over 18 years old, while some agencies prefer over 21.
You'll need to be employed, self-employed or a student with income.
Families are not suitable but single people or couples are accepted - but in some cases guests or pets aren't allowed.
Then simply apply online via the guardian agency website - you'll need to provide ID documents, proof of income/employment and sometimes references.
You might also need to attend an interview or information session.
If accepted, you'll be offered viewings of available properties - most are advertised on the agency's websites.
You should be prepared to move quickly if a place becomes available — unusual properties go fast.
Once moved in, simply keep the agency updated on any concerns and issues with the building.
How to choose a guardian agency
Make sure the company is a member of the Property Guardian Providers Association (PGPA) or has good reviews.
Here are some of the more established agencies:
Live-in Guardians - www.liveinguardians.com
Property Guardian Protection - www.propertyguardianprotection.com/
Dot Dot Dot - www.dotdotdotproperty.com
Global Guardians - www.global-guardians.co.uk
Lowe - https://thelowegroupltd.com
Blue Door Property Guardians - www.bluedoorpropertyguardians.co.uk
Ad Hoc - www.adhocproperty.co.uk
6
6
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
37 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Developer at war with posh owners of £500k beach huts over floating 'party bar' directly in front of their properties
The developer behind a controversial floating restaurant, which has enraged the owners of Britain's most expensive beach huts, has labelled the council's decision to reject his application as 'hypocritical' and 'ridiculous'. Paul Trickett, 66, and his wife Virginia, 50, had sought to bring a fully licensed premises called Christchurch Harbour Kitchen to the waters of the idyllic Mudeford Spit in Bournemouth. He has even begun building the float, which he says will seat around 50 people and had hoped to play 'ambient' music from 8am until 7pm while selling alcohol until 10.30pm with meals such as fresh fish, steak and lobster. But a council meeting saw his licensing application thrown out, and the 66-year-old says he is now gearing up to take Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP) Council to the courtroom. Mr Trickett found himself locked in a weeks-long feud with hut owners on the Spit, who said they would be 'traumatised' by the disruption of their sea views and the prospect of drunken revellers urinating off the vessel. He has since hit back at those claims, insisting that it would not be a 'party boat' and that he wanted to give people the chance 'enjoy themselves' by having a meal while watching the sunset on the water. Speaking this week to MailOnline, Mr Trickett vowed that he will still sell food on the Spit this summer - even to those who vehemently objected to his proposals. 'We'll be there selling food shortly so the restaurant will carry on,' he said. 'With a premise licence we would've had to be in a fixed place and on that same spot all the time. 'But without it we can go anywhere we like. We could go round to the beach tonight if we wanted. 'And we have temporary licenses we can use. There's no problem with them, you just apply. We have up to 50 of those to use during the summer. So we could do that.' Mr Trickett and his wife are from Christchurch and he said the idea for the food float came to him after he waited more than an hour to be served fish and chips at a local establishment. The 30ft by 30ft motorised venue will have a kitchen in the middle with seating and tables around the outside. He also said he wanted to give 'healthy competition' to the Beach House, which is the only currently licensed restaurant and cafe on the Spit. The Beach House building burnt down in November 2018 and has currently been replaced by a temporary cafe, operating from three shipping containers while the council make plans for a replacement. 'It's a monopoly,' he said. 'But there's no reason I can't go down there. 'I'm not going to be down there every day. It's not going to be in the winter. It's not going to be in early spring. Just the summer months. And I'm looking forward to it.' In total Mr Trickett said his application received 37 objections, with two subsequently withdrawn. As the Spit has just under 350 beach huts, the 66-year-old believes that a silent majority actually support his plans. 'I know that there are lots of them who can't wait for another option down there,' he added. MailOnline visited the Spit prior to the BCP Council decision being finalised to speak with hut owners, renters and regular visitors about how they felt about the plans. And while only a smattering supported the idea - citing high prices at the Beach House as a reason - many who were happy to speak about the proposals were in dismay at what Mr Trickett had put forward. With huts on the Spit fetching almost £500,000, and are permitted to be slept in from March until October, some owners believed that the premium price should be rewarded with serenity. Julia Greenham, 72, from Bristol, purchased her 'Bournemouth bolthole' in 2009 for around £100,000 and said she was 'so angry' after hearing of the plans. The actress and singer continued: 'We all are. Those huts are worth almost half a million, and nobody told us formally. We just saw a planning notice on a bit of blue paper in front of my hut. 'I'm traumatised because my hut is worth more to me than most other things in my life. I adore it, it's where I come for solace. 'I don't want a b****y restaurant floating along in front of me with a licence for drink and music when I've got that already. It's ridiculous.' 'They mean a lot to everyone. It's the tranquility and view that you go there for.' Mrs Greenham says the venue getting a licence would also encourage far-flung visitors to spend the day who would end up drinking to the point of being 'trollied'. 'We have a silent code of conduct on the Spit,' she continued. 'Everybody knows how to have a great time and behave themselves, but I can't imagine if people are coming from town that they won't understand that and abuse it. 'It's very sad. I'm not a prude at all. I'm the person that's there first in line for a party. 'But to have a restaurant in front of the view that people pay almost half a million for is barking, that's what it is.' 'Everybody's incensed about it. I think I can pretty much say all of the owners are not happy at all. The only ones I've spoken to are all outraged as much as I am.' The proposals by Mr Trickett would have saw the restaurant moored on the water in front of Mrs Greenham's beach hut. And this would have affected Yvonne Manning, 63, from Surrey, who rents the hut every year from Mrs Greenham. A regular on the Spit for years, the 63-year-old said she would have no longer been interested in visiting if the plans went through. She said: 'The beauty is just the naturalness of the place. There's no Wi-Fi, kids can skim stones, paddle and all of that stuff. My daughter loves it and comes with her friends. 'But I'd be reluctant to stay here if it was to come. I certainly wouldn't pay [Mrs Greenham] to come here if so she'd be losing income if it was there. 'It just wouldn't fit.' Steve Barratt, 74, who is the former chairman and current committee member of Mudeford Sandbank Beach Huts Association (MSBHA), doubted that BCP's decision would halt Mr Trickett's plans. He said: 'I think he's just an opportunist and he's got an idea and wants to go for it. I think even if he doesn't get permission, he might even put it down here, just to see what the reaction is. But Mr Barratt says he doesn't think the 'stupid idea' will last very long, casting doubts over the restaurant's appeal. 'They'll probably have a chemical toilet on board,' he added. 'They'd have to take that away with them. I doubt they'd empty it over the side unless they were being a bit cavalier. 'It's not going to be a particularly savoury environment and I can't see people being attracted to it. 'If there's a cavalier personality running it, then who knows where the oil they use to cook is going to end up. The 74-year-old's wife, Jennie, added that the full ordeal was 'cloud cuckoo land.' A point of concern for the council was 'how hazardous toilet/sanitary waste would be disposed of' particularly on busier days. Mr Trickett insisted that he had built a 'posh thing' that would limit smells on board and allow for easy disposal thanks to its cassette function - which are the toilet builds typically found in caravans and motorhomes. But the idea that there would only one loo on board struck fear in locals who said drunken tourists may urinate off the vessel if it were to be occupied. Jim Longman, 69, who owns a hut with his wife Sallie, said he was concerned that if the only toilet on board was occupied that 'people might p**s over the edge'. He added: 'I don't know how they're going to connect their toilet to the mains, so how and where are they going to pump it out? 'You've also got the problem where if it's open that late and people are getting drunk they then may think 'Oh we've got to walk back but we can steal a boat and go across to the run and make that distance shorter'. The 30ft by 30ft motorised venue will have a kitchen in the middle with seating and tables around the outside 'I believe the developer's argument is that he wanted his wife to have something to do as a business interest, and so he's building this thing with little foresight. Just buy her a bloody dog.' Mrs Longman, 61, told how urination had been a problem on the beach when alcohol has been previously involved - potentially sparking these fears. She said: 'When the cafe had an event called 'Sax on the Beach' it got out of control and people were p*****g outside. 'There are a lot of kids around, it's quite Enid Blyton-esque down here. It's just not that kind of vibe at this beach, they should go to Sobo or Sandbanks for that.' She also believes that Mr Trickett has been 'arrogant' throughout the process. 'He's telling people that everyone's for it and most of them are really not,' she continued. 'He wants to play music which will affect almost all of this area. 'It might be a quiet breakfast vibe but nevertheless, sometimes it's nice to have no noise. If you want to play music you can, but you can't ask a restaurant to turn their music down. 'The waves and sound of the birds is lovely, not their choice of music inflicted on you. I can't think of anything good about it to be honest. 'A floating pontoon with oil hot enough to do fish and chips for up to 70 people, does that sound like a safe idea?' Mr Trickett labelled accusations of his prospective customers urinating off the float as 'ridiculous'. He added: 'No one's going to be peeing off the side. Do they pee off the ferry when they come across? No, they don't. 'Let's be fair. There's not going to be any drunks on board because it's not a bar. You can't come on and sit there and have a drink. You have to have a full meal. 'We discussed that in the meeting. They wanted to know whether by buying a packet of crisps would entitle them to buy a drink? No, they'd have to sit down and have a meal.' Despite Mr Trickett's arguments, the committee said that approving his application would 'undermine the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance, public safety and the protection of children from harm.' A spokesperson for the council told MailOnline: 'Members of the licensing sub-committee have refused this application after careful consideration of the proposals, the views of residents, and the four licensing objectives.' He has been given 21 days to appeal, and Mr Trickett says he is ready to take it to a Magistrates' Court. He believes that having the backing of environmental staff, the fire brigade and police may work in his favour. In their rejection, the committee highlighted concerns over storage of waste on the vessel which they said 'could cause a public nuisance, especially in hot weather'. However, Mr Trickett debated that the Beach House store their food in general waste bins which 'bake under the sun for days' and that this was an example of 'double standards' in the decision-making. 'All their rubbish is stored in council bins,' he added. 'It's a bit hypocritical.' The committee also had concerns regarding the restaurant's ability to raise up and down with the tide, which they say posed a risk to children and families playing in the water nearby. But Mr Trickett said it was clear in his application that 'the vessel would attach itself to the seabed by way of arrowhead pole structure that would raise up and down with the tide.' He added that because the restaurant would be in the inner harbour, that this negated any risk. 'Not many people play in the inner harbor because of the sewage,' he continued. 'The seaside is where they all go. So they contradicted themselves there. I've told them that it goes up and down with the tide. 'They're saying they're worried that it doesn't, which they're thinking could cause an accident if if it's stuck up in the air and a child goes underneath it. 'But that's not the case. There are other boats all around that area doing exactly the same as what I'm doing.' The committee said that these concerns, as well as the vessel having no barriers, 'was a significant risk to public safety' as it could see customers fall into the water. 'There's going to be a fully secure barrier completely around the craft,' Mr Trickett said. 'It even has kickboards on the bottom so that when you pull your chair back, it doesn't go over the side and fall in. 'They obviously didn't look at the pictures very well and they were told that it's got barriers. 'So that once again, that is not true. The others aren't true. It should have passed.' The 66-year-old also criticised members of the MSBHA, who he says act like they 'own the place'. 'I have family and friends who've got huts down there,' he continued. 'And they all talk about the hut association acting as if they own the place. 'They don't own the place. They own the hut. They've paid silly money for the huts and they seem to think they own it. 'I am floating on the water much the same as any other craft. And it's something different. It's an option, it's competition. 'You can have lobster, steak, pizza or fish and chips, a cup of coffee now or your soft drinks and have a bit of an experience. 'They do it all around the world. Dartmouth have got a floating one. Plymouth have got a floating one. All around Asia they've got floating ones everywhere. The Thames have even got them. So it's nothing new, but it's new for Christchurch.' Mr Trickett said he won't give up on the project which he has spent 'a lot of money' on, and says he is looking ahead to secure a license for next summer. There are 346 beach huts at Mudeford with prices rising dramatically in the last 30 years The remote location makes them very desirable as an exclusive bolthole, and with cars banned and the only way to reach it is by a 20-minute walk, a short ferry trip (above) or a novelty land train ride They can be slept in from March to October, but have no running water or mains electricity, and toilets and washing facilities are in a communal block There are 346 beach huts at Mudeford with prices rising dramatically in the last 30 years. Many of the owners MailOnline spoke with had inherited the huts which were propped up on the beach following the end of the Second World War. The remote location makes them very desirable as an exclusive bolthole, and with cars banned and the only way to reach it is by a 20-minute walk, a short ferry trip or a novelty land train ride. They can be slept in from March to October, but have no running water or mains electricity, and toilets and washing facilities are in a communal block.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
It's a buyers market! How YOU could knock £22k off a house price and the key to a cheeky winning bid
HOMEBUYERS could knock tens of thousands of pounds off the asking price of a property using a few key haggling tricks. Sellers are agreeing to sales that are £22,694 below asking price on average, according to figures from property portal Rightmove. But what is the trick to making a winning bid? We spoke to experts to share their tips. 2 2 Property experts now say the market has tipped in the favour of buyers - and with this comes power for anyone looking to purchase a new home. A typical house is now worth £378,240, which means buyers are haggling a discount of 6% on average. Although mortgage rates have fallen in recent months, they are still much higher than the levels seen in the last decade. Meanwhile, house prices have continued to climb during this period but wages have not. As a result, buyers are limited on what they are able to afford. This means that at the moment it is all the more important to get a discount when trying to land your dream home. Check out the market When making an offer that is below the asking price, always check the price that similar houses have sold for nearby, suggests buying agent Emma Fildes. 'Knowing the area and type of property you've been searching for is key,' she said. 'Past sales can be found on the Land Registry website or Rightmove and you can see the sold house prices under the street name.' Best schemes for first-time buyers Always expand your search to the streets around you too, as homes on these roads may have sold more recently. This could help you to make a like-for-like comparison with the home you are making an offer on, she recommends. You can also install the Property Log attachment on your Google Chrome internet browser, which will show you which direction asking prices are moving in your area. Win over the seller A large part of whether you will be successful when buying a home is whether your circumstances match those of the seller. How to sell your home for the best price IF you are looking to sell your home this year the there are a few ways to guarantee that it sells for the best price. Homes that are priced too high when they are first put up for sale are more likely to be sold for a low asking price, according to property website Rightmove. Houses that need to lower their price during marketing are less likely to find a buyer overall, its research found. These houses can also take over two months longer to find a buyer. When listing your home on a property portal you should start with a competitive price, a well written description and attractive images. These things can encourage a potential buyer to enquire about a viewing immediately. Homes that receive an enquiry on the first day of marketing are 22% more likely to successfully find a buyer than properties which take more than two weeks to receive their first enquiry, it found. Emma Fildes said: 'Understanding the seller's circumstance can also enable you to get a larger discount if you can provide something other buyers can't when making an offer.' Being able to exchange quickly, make a cash purchase, sell without an onward chain or extend a completion date can all be attractive to a seller, she said. You can be cheeky - but there's a limit When making an offer you should always act with conviction while also trying to avoid offending the seller, recommends Ranald Mitchell of Charwin Private Clients. 'It's all very well trying to put in a cheeky bid but in doing so you could insult the vendor,' he said. 'It's human nature that if you insult them then they are going to dislike your subsequent offers or be put off a little.' If you're going to make an ambitious bid then you should get yourself into a good position to increase the chances that your offer is accepted, he said. Ranald said: 'If you can move quickly or have a mortgage approved then your offer may be more likely to be accepted.' Bide your time The best time to negotiate a discount on the price of a home is when it has been on the market for a while. Most sellers will not accept low offers in the first week or two of listing. Wait until the seller realises their listing is overpriced. Most sellers put a house on the market because they want to move themselves. If it takes a while to secure offers then they could feel stuck or it could create issues with their own moving plans if they are part of a chain. Wait a few weeks before putting in a low offer. You are more likely to have your offer accepted if it is well informed and polite. Keep your budget secret Have a maximum budget in mind but avoid telling the seller what it is, suggests Ranald Mitchell, director at Charwin Private Clients. 'If you tell the seller what your budget is, it can backfire,' he said. If the seller is aware that you can afford more than you offer, then they have no incentive to reduce the asking price. This could mean you end up paying more than you needed to. .
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Starmer's industrial plan is dangerously close to ‘Old Labour'
If they must help sectors that are particularly hurt by 10pc tariffs, then I would use the tax system so the benefits are broadened. Scottish whisky will no doubt find it harder to compete in the United States, so why not cut alcohol duty for spirits by a commensurate amount to the extra tariff costs they face? Those companies crying out for help would benefit, but so too would consumers here. I would also look closely at a reduction in VAT. This could be temporary and possibly just on business and domestic energy bills. Labour actually proposed cutting VAT on domestic energy in opposition, so you never know. Either way, it would help reduce costs for all businesses and households alike, while temporarily reducing inflation. I would add to this fiscal boost with a unilateral approach to our own tariff regime, cutting the cost of goods for business and consumers alike. This sort of fiscal industrial strategy that would cut the cost of doing business for everyone would be much more effective than the cherry-picking subsidy-led approach we are starting to see from this Prime Minister. But I know this approach won't be taken because to fund it all would require cutting spending still further, including going much further on welfare reform. The botched handling of the Spring Statement has meant that this is nearly impossible for this Government. So instead, we're stuck with the 'Old Labour' ways of picking winners and getting the rest of us to pick up the tab.
