Hello

Trying to get a sense of how far my money will stretch in the UK if I were to take up residence about 20 minutes outside the London area. And that budget is after tax, and for only one person. What do you think? Is that a comfortable income if I can afford to buy my home outright, with zero mortgage, and zero car payment? I'm concern that the outer London area might be beyond my reach. My expenses will be food, property tax, utilities, car insurance, travel & holiday expenses ect.
Thanks for your input.

I would not call twenty minutes from London "outer" you would most definitely be experiencing London like prices. You would need to be a good hour or ninety minutes from London to benefit from "outer" London prices.

But the expense is housing and if you have that covered so zero outgoings on rent or mortgage then I am sure this would provide a perfectly comfortable standard of living for a single person.

I agree with Bermuda shorts. It took me over an hour to get to work when I lived in an inner London borough. But I guess you mean a twenty minute train journey, but even then twenty minutes would only get you from Charing Cross to Lewisham

I am not clear where the OP is twenty minutes from. Twenty minutes from Trafalgar square, twenty minutes outside of the City of Westminster, or twenty minutes outside of Greater London?

And where is the job? Near the home, in Central London, or 20 minutes away?

£50,000 is more than enough to live anywhere in the UK if you don't have to worry about housing costs. The real question is how much can you afford to spend on property. That will dictate where you can afford to live rather than your other expenses.

No I wasn't either, it sort of doesn't make sense. But I was thinking twenty minutes travel from any point in London is not "outer" London.

The answer to your question is likely yes but, as others have said, your scenario is not clear.

Property tax and utilities will be dependent on the property you occupy. Travel and holiday expenses are in the "how long is a piece of string category". Travel to where? Holiday where?

I'm sorry guys for not being more exact in asking my questions. And thank you for responding. My 50,000 sterling after tax income will be from investments and retirement funds. I will not be employed! So that in it self makes location an option and not a must. I want to be slightly outside London proper and not right within the whirlwind. Great interesting things about living in a large city but the adjectives of hectic and chaotic accompany city life as well. Thought maybe a balance of near but not to close would be the right approach. Being one hour or driving distance away from London is preferred. I do not want a mortgage. Will sell a property in order to buy one outright. .Something simple and no more than a 3bed 2bth semi .

I don't think I can afford to be on the inner edges of London's expensive property market. I was considering Hemel Hempstead, St Albans? I want the advantages of being near the city but at a slower pace. At one point I was considering Manchester but a friend has convinced me that the better option is near London for culture, night life and ease of travel to the continent. Well that is really about it. An amazing location is the hope and will see how this works out.

So it still depends on your budget and tolerance of living in a §4it401e. If you have £1million to spend on a fairly ordinary home you could try the Richmond area, and be at Heathrow in 15 minutes or the West End in half an hour. If you don't mind the aforementioned 'hole you could probably find something a lot cheaper in Slough, and still get into Paddington in 20 minutes. In between, budgetwise, there are probably a million alternatives in the London area.

I would never have described St Albans or Hemel Hempstead as twenty minutes from London, but they are commuter towns and accordingly property will still be a premium. So back to the first question, £50k is easily liveable if you have bought a property outright, it does feel like this is more a question about property prices. I have a three bed two bath in a similar town in Hertforshire and it would cost about £600k.

Personally I think Manchester would be a great choice. It has thriving nightlife and culture and to be honest I would have thought getting to Europe from Manchester would be heaps easier than getting to Europe from Hemel Hempstead. As I say I live in a similar Hertfordshire town and to get to Europe I run the gauntlet of the M25 to get to either airport, something you need to allow two hours for and indeed I often opt to stay at an airport hotel overnight. Compared to Manchester airport, probably an easy fifteen to thirty minute drive to airport from many parts of greater Manchester, I am originally from north Manchester and it was still very easy to get to the airport (which is south).

That certainly gives me something to think about. Prices are going up everywhere it seems. Thankfully the exchange rate is in my favor. I'm selling a home in the States.

I agree with the post above, getting into Europe is not any easier unless you are living very close to a channel tunnel link and that would mean either very central London, or Kent. Otherwise, Manchester would be as good.

However, if the south east is preferred then maybe consider Windsor. Nice town, with a country feel but close to London with regular trains.

Hello, and thank you for responding.

I'm sure living near London is going to be a bit more challenging considering the difference in population size. But if I'm fortunate enough to find the right location and hopefully a great property it all could be worth the extra travel time to various places, and other inconveniences associated with urban living. Plus, living near London in winter could make navigating colder weather a little easier what with built-in conveniences of living near a large city.

No doubt Manchester is a proper city but how would you say it stacks up to London in terms of excitement and nightlife? Do you sometime wish you were back living in Manchester? I have not closed my mind to various options but living near London does seem like a very good fit.

The price you mentioned for your home is similar to my target budget. After selling my property here in the States the goal is to buy a home in the UK for around 550,000 sterling, and then pocket the rest. I want to stay in my comfort zone. Plus I do not wish to pay out too much in property tax. The goal is to wind down and transition to retirement. Living with in my means is very important and doable. More play less work is now my mindset.

I look forward to the seasonable weather of the UK and to get away from this hot clammy weather in the States.

I think you would struggle to get a three bed two bath house for £550k in St Albans, you would perhaps get something in a surrounding but less desirable area. I mentioned £600k and I am a bit further out and would say this is a cheaper area than St Albans.

Manchester is a large buzzing city, it has plenty of shops, nightlife, theatre, restaurants, I can't imagine getting stuck for things to do. But I can't comment in detail because I don't go up there on a regular basis, I was last there in January.

Without a shadow of a doubt I would move there again, but at the moment work options do not permit it. It is a definite retirement option for us though. We would be able to buy similar house for less than than half the price of what we have here in Herts, in fact it has long been part of my retirement decumulation strategy.

Consider Brighton, Eastbourne, Hove, Lewes, or any of the Sussex villages near them. They have direct train access to London (just over an hour), and Brighton has a thriving cultural life of its own. They are also convenient for Gatwick airport, and the Channel Tunnel.