Renting vs buying comparison was simplistic

I was most amused at your article’s (October 12) overly simplistic and thus wrong comparison between a lifetime of renting and purchasing a property.

Lets take the example of the BN20 postcode average house.

To buy house you normally need a mortgage, this means that over the lifetime of the 25 year mortgage you actually pay £546,000 for the house plus you have to stump up £9,918.75 stamp duty and at least £2,000 in fees before it is yours.

Then there are a huge list of things the owner is responsible for that a renter doesnt have to worry about so £10,000 for buildings insurance, £50,000 for new roofs (based on building regs assumed lifetime), another £25,000 in windows, £15,000 for replacing the boiler, £12,000 for rewiring and around £75,000 for internal replacements and redecorating like kitchens and bathrooms.

This adds up to a total of some £744,918.

If the renter has a burst pipe it is the landlords problem whereas the owner has to fix it themselves or get in a plumber.

This has happened to me 3 times in the 30 years I have owned property so another £1,000 for emergency plumbers to add to the overall bill in the 50 year lifetime.

Using the above figures if I rented out a BN20 house I would be giving away £1,250 a year so someone else could enjoy it.

Not such a favourable comparison any more is it?