Rented normally, it costs you £283 a month. That is £3,395 a year, every year you hold it.

Will it pay?Calculator

You top up £283 a month — the mortgage takes 91p of every pound of rent

Borrowing £52,229 less would close that shortfall — which is £52,229 more cash at the start, on top of the deposit.

£894 mortgage

£986 rent in£283 short

◧ market rent £986 · 11 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 £16,974 more over five years, because it loses £283 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~£14,900, unseen

□ works not inspected

What would have to be true?The working

£65,000 off and it stops losing money

At the asking price you feed it £283 a month. At £150,348 the rent covers everything — leaving stamp duty of £8,024 at that price.

offer £150,348

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 £104,615 of the £165,000 loan

That £60,385 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 £43,646. Lenders test the rent at 7.5% and need it to cover 145% of the payment.

£1,495 needed

more than the £948 rent

stressed at 7.5%, 145% cover

◧ rent after empty weeks £948PRA-style test

Who has to say yes?Council record

Lincoln council approves 86% — 78% on a cautious reading

A council-wide rate across 117 HMO decisions, not a forecast for this address.

86%

0%50%100%

never approvesalways approves

the band is the cautious reading of the same 117 decisions — as low as 78%

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

How big is it, really?The plan

One figure, and nothing checking it 1,033 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

Lincoln, LN5 7PG

1 of 1 school 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

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 16 Sep 2026

Which strategy wins?The ways to run it

Every way loses money — Rent by the room loses least, at £111 a month

Rent by the room needs £26,000 more cash than the others.

Rent by the room−£111 · £114,800 in

Standard rental−£283 · £88,800 in

Housing-benefit rent−£583 · £88,800 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) · Guaranteed council rent (no scheme in this borough) · Buy, improve & sell (pays out on sale)

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

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

−£24,937 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 £88,800 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