3 ms·

There's no denying that London's an expensive city but there are plenty of options available for those on a budget: http://www.gumtree.com/flatshare-offered/lon

There's no denying that London's an expensive city but there are plenty of options available for those on a budget: http://www.gumtree.com/flatshare-offered/london http://www.gumtree.com/flatshare-offered/london

gadders 13y ago
Or even get a tube/train map and not live in London. Plenty of people commute to work and seem to cope OK. Living in London is no more a right than owning a Rolls Royce.
- polymatter 13y ago
  Commuting doesn't actually save you any money in most cases. Transport costs eat most of those savings. The thing that commuting gets you is access to a nice area with nice family homes close to good schools.
onion2k 13y ago
The cheapest on the first page is £300/month - about 25% more than the £230/month mentioned in the article. The second cheapest is £360/month - almost 50% more. If you're trying to demonstrate that there are alternative cheap places to rent, I'd say you failed. And all of those rentals will require at least a month's rent up front, which is the main point that the article was addressing - starting out renting is beyond the pocket of many people.
- icebraining 13y ago
  Filtering for <£60, there are still a few rooms in that site, some of which are "no deposit"; e.g. http://www.gumtree.com/p/flats-houses/very-cheap-short-term-share-rooms-no-deposit/1049970881 http://www.gumtree.com/p/flats-houses/very-cheap-short-term-... I wouldn't enjoy living there, but it seems better than the boat.
- jackgavigan 13y ago
  "Found 43,415 Flatshare, Rooms to Rent ads in London" Gumtree displays 55 ads per page. So, after looking through ~0.25% of the adverts, you concluded that there was nothing cheaper than £300/month? Wow, that's pretty thorough! It took me less than five minutes to find a hostel-style roomshare for £7 per night (less than £220 per month).
- welly 13y ago
  I'd quite happily pay an extra £70 a month if only to get a flushing toilet and a room that doesn't drip water onto my head.

gadders 13y ago

Or even get a tube/train map and not live in London. Plenty of people commute to work and seem to cope OK. Living in London is no more a right than owning a Rolls Royce.

polymatter 13y ago
Commuting doesn't actually save you any money in most cases. Transport costs eat most of those savings. The thing that commuting gets you is access to a nice area with nice family homes close to good schools.

onion2k 13y ago

The cheapest on the first page is £300/month - about 25% more than the £230/month mentioned in the article. The second cheapest is £360/month - almost 50% more. If you're trying to demonstrate that there are alternative cheap places to rent, I'd say you failed. And all of those rentals will require at least a month's rent up front, which is the main point that the article was addressing - starting out renting is beyond the pocket of many people.

icebraining 13y ago
Filtering for <£60, there are still a few rooms in that site, some of which are "no deposit"; e.g. http://www.gumtree.com/p/flats-houses/very-cheap-short-term-share-rooms-no-deposit/1049970881 http://www.gumtree.com/p/flats-houses/very-cheap-short-term-... I wouldn't enjoy living there, but it seems better than the boat.
jackgavigan 13y ago
"Found 43,415 Flatshare, Rooms to Rent ads in London" Gumtree displays 55 ads per page. So, after looking through ~0.25% of the adverts, you concluded that there was nothing cheaper than £300/month? Wow, that's pretty thorough! It took me less than five minutes to find a hostel-style roomshare for £7 per night (less than £220 per month).
welly 13y ago
I'd quite happily pay an extra £70 a month if only to get a flushing toilet and a room that doesn't drip water onto my head.