The rise of the over-50 first-time buyer

Are you an over-50 first-time buyer? Share your story by emailing: money@telegraph.co.uk.
Leah Mynett has been renting for years. She currently lives with her partner, Noel Storey, and now, both aged 56, they're becoming first-time buyers.
'We're of the generation, born in the 1960s, the generation that drifted for so long. Noel's a Londoner and I've always worked there – we accepted things would always be that we couldn't afford to buy,' says Mynett.
But then several events happened that made them reconsider this. The first was Covid.
Mynett works as a business change consultant and Storey is an IT analyst. When the pandemic hit, both found that they could do their jobs just as easily from home.
'Everyone in my office works from home now and we have one day a month when we all get together in London,' she says.
The second event was that Storey had a pulmonary embolism, and it became clear they couldn't continue to stay in the house they'd been renting in east London, which was was damp and mouldy.
'It was a wake-up call. [I thought], what happens if he doesn't fully recover? There is no guarantee that we are going to be healthy in our 70s. We didn't want to be worrying about needing to find rent,' says Mynett.
Fortunately, Storey has made a significant recovery. 'Certain things are harder for him. He's getting better every month, but he has slightly less mobility than he had before – he still cycles though.'
The third factor was Mynett turning 55, the age at which she was able to access her pension savings.
'I've been working on-and-off since my 20s and I've got all these little pension pots, so I amalgamated them – except a couple which were significant,' she says.
It was estimated that these smaller pensions would only give the couple an income of £1,000 to £2,000 a year when they retired, so Mynett decided to take out the money and put it towards a house deposit instead.
'Hitting 55 did make a difference, as I didn't have a deposit to call upon before then. It's pointless having these [pensions] if you're paying £1,500 a month in rent.
'When I liquidated the pensions, I had to pay tax on them but I thought that it was worth it if it would give us a deposit and a higher deposit so we would get a better rate on our mortgage,' she says.
The couple, who don't have children, decided to look for a home in Liverpool as property was more affordable and they had friends there. They're now in the process of buying a 1950s terrace house with three bedrooms, two reception rooms and a garden for their two cats.
The house costs £175,000, which is under the stamp duty threshold, and – thanks to Mynett's pensions – they have a 15pc deposit of £26,250 and a mortgage balance of £148,750.
Their interest rate is 4.54pc, fixed for five years, and their repayments are £1,538 a month which, when household bills are taken into account, is similar to what they paid to live in London, where their monthly rent was £1,495.
The couple had no trouble securing the finance and had an offer within a week.
'We could have got a bigger mortgage but wanted to be able to pay it off in 10 years. We were quite definitive about what we wanted to do – they were talking about a 20-year mortgage, but we choose a shorter term and a house that was within our budget range,' says Mynett.
As both are on good salaries, the couple were offered a mortgage of up to £420,000 and could have extended it until they were 70. 'The mortgage broker said we were so sensible!'
The current term will see their house paid off by the time they are 67. 'This gives us the option of retiring at 67 and having the choice of what to do. We can decide whether to work full-time or not.'
Mynett still has two lucrative legacy pensions, plus the workplace pension she is paying into with her current job, but thinks her smaller pots have been put to better use as a deposit.
'This was a better way of securing our future – if you don't have somewhere to live, you have no future.'
The rise of 50-plus first-time buyers
While many first-time buyers do manage to get on the property ladder when they're younger, the number of those in a similar situation to Mynett is on the rise.
The number of first-time buyers over the age of 50 has increased by 30pc in the last five years, according to analysis of FCA product sales data by savings and mortgage platform, Tembo.
There were 12,000 first-time buyers over 50 in the UK in 2022 and, based on current trends, by 2030, this number is expected to increase to 19,000, equating to 5pc of all first-time buyers.
On a regional level, London has the lowest number of first-time buyers aged over 50, at 2.4pc, and the South West has the highest, at 3.5pc, but in every region across the UK, growth in over-50s first-time buyers has outstripped total first-time buyer growth.
'With property prices continuing to rise in the most popular areas of the country, we have seen that the age of the average first-time buyer is definitely increasing,' says Adam Watt, of Cheffins Estate Agents.
'These are not always the typical first-time buyers in their 20s or 30s, rather they can be in their 40s or 50s, and we are seeing an increase in older generations looking to get on to the property ladder for the first time.'
'It's sobering to think I'll be paying my mortgage until I'm 74'
David Boden, who turns 50 in December, is one such buyer in the process of purchasing his first home, a three-bedroom detached house, in Ely, Cambridgeshire.
The property, which was originally built in 2008, is being sold for £405,000 and, while the mortgage is in Boden's name, he will be living there with his partner, Andy, 62.
'The reason I haven't bought before now is a combination of [moving] around with work a lot, and I am also truly terrible in the house in terms of the practical maintenance of things,' says Boden.
'If I was renting, someone else would come and sort it all out for me but, in the back of my mind, I knew I always needed to buy.'
Boden works as a business development director for Stagecoach East, having worked in buses for 28 years. 'I've always loved my job and, when your hobby becomes your job, a work/life balance is challenging,' he says.
The chance to finally buy a home came when Boden's father passed away and left him some money.
'My dad, in his last few years, said I needed to buy a house and get a decent car – I had an old Skoda with 110,000 miles on it. So, to honour my dad's memory, I've bought a house with the inheritance he left me, and I also went out and bought a second-hand Mercedes.'
Boden has a £90,000 deposit and, now the first-time buyer stamp duty threshold has returned to £300,000, he will have to pay £5,000 in tax on the property he's chosen.
'As first-time buyers, I feel like it's counter-intuitive to make it harder for people of my age to buy, especially with the state of social housing at the moment,' he says.
Despite being worried about his age, Boden secured a £315,000 mortgage and could even have afforded a property up to £450,000.
'I felt the biological clock was ticking and I was terrified that I wouldn't get a mortgage, but a friend of mine is a broker and got a very good deal for me from Barclays. The rate is 4.46pc for five years and the term will last until I'm 74,' he explains.
While Boden admits 'it's sobering to think I'll be paying it off till then', he doesn't have any plans to retire.
'I love my job and, frankly, I can easily see myself doing it till I'm 70. If I didn't like working, I wouldn't take on a mortgage till this age.' He also hopes that he will move into more senior roles that allow him to pay the loan off quicker.
Boden and his partner don't have children but are thinking about fostering. 'I also have a generous death-in-service benefit, so I know, if I die, then the mortgage is paid off for Andy.' He also has two pension schemes, one with Stagecoach and another from when he worked in local government.
Boden regrets getting on the property ladder so late. 'My dad was right. I would have had some equity and life skills if I'd bought earlier. It would have forced me to learn how to change a fuse!
'I should have done it five years ago; it took a kick from my dead dad to do it.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Telegraph

39 minutes ago

• Telegraph

How Rachel Reeves prioritised growth over Britain's pension savers

When Labour swept to power last year, around half a million pensioners held their breath. Members of the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) and the Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) had spent years fighting for their full pension entitlement. Months earlier, the Tories had indicated they might finally be restored. The PPF and the FAS step in to pay people's pensions when their defined benefit schemes can no longer afford to, often because a firm has gone bust and cannot afford to keep it running. The increasing costs of such schemes, partly due to increased life expectancy, have also put them under pressure. Over the past 20 years, more than 2,000 schemes have been bailed out. However, the payments members receive are rarely the same as the entitlements they had built up – for some, it isn't even close. Strict rules mean that when a scheme goes bust, anyone who is not already drawing their pension will only be entitled to 90pc of it when they retire. Crucially, payments for any years built up before 1997 also won't rise with inflation, while any after that are capped at just 2.5pc. As a result, some members' pensions never increase, while others fall as low as 50pc of what they should have been. Savers were hoping a Tory intervention would rescue them from retirement poverty while others could have seen six-figure losses reversed as they finally received the full pensions they'd worked decades for. In July 2024, the power to change lives fell into the hands of the Labour party, bringing fresh hope that a battle stretching across two decades could finally be won. Yet 12 months on, Chancellor Rachel Reeves continues to ignore their plight, instead choosing to hand a major financial boost to pension providers in her relentless pursuit of growth. A fortnight ago, she announced plans to tweak rules that would mean they no longer have to pay a multi-million pound levy to sustain the scheme, which has raised £10bn over two decades. Those whose pensions rely on the PPF and FAS called the decision 'shameful', 'morally corrupt' and 'pandering to the industry' as they continue fighting for their full payments. After years of lobbying, campaign groups are animatedly pointing to the £13.7bn in reserves that the PPF now holds. It would cost just £10.1bn to restore the pensions of its 293,000 members, including awarding inflationary increases of up to 5pc and repaying arrears. However, the fund is powerless without a change in legislation. After the election, with hopes growing that Labour would make that change, eyes were keenly trained on the Pension Schemes Bill. When it was published earlier this month, it did contain a major legislative change – but for pension schemes, not members. The Bill gives the PPF greater powers, but only to reduce the levy that pension schemes pay to sustain it. First collected in 2006-07, it has already fallen significantly since its record level of £720m in 2010-11. It now sits at just £45m, and the PPF will soon be able to reduce it to zero. The levy can be reintroduced again if needed. The move will give schemes extra cash at a time when they are being pushed into increasing their UK investment by the Chancellor's recent Mansion House reforms. Saving wealthy pension schemes money when individuals are struggling doesn't sit well with Maurice Alphandary, 70, from Abingdon, near Oxfordshire. He worked as a chemical engineer for AEA Technology, the commercial arm of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, which was privatised before going bust. He now runs the AEA Technology Pensions Campaign, which has spent 13 years fighting to restore pensions. The current PPF rules will cost him around £100,000. He said: 'It just shows how toothless the PPF is in protecting the interests of its members against the Government. The Government can just ride roughshod over them. 'On the one hand, the Government says, 'We really care about our pensioners', but they don't. They're just pandering to the industry and it's a way of just running down the surplus instead of giving to the people who have suffered. There's enough money to compensate us.' His former colleague, 73-year-old Andrew Turner from Abingdon, receives just £18,000 per year from a pension that should pay £29,000. He said: 'For a Labour government who are supposedly focused on those who are less well off, this seems to be exactly the opposite of what they should be doing. 'The question is why should pension companies be rewarded when we're being penalised. If the Government or the PPF had any moral responsibility, it's those who are in greatest need should have first call on this surplus.' The Bill contained no news for the 140,000 FAS members either. With no levy, any changes would be funded by the public purse. David Page, 73, lives in Chelmsford and worked for Bradstock Group, a commercial insurer that went bust in 2003. He only receives around half of the pension he paid for, and is not confident of any progress. He said: 'It still hurts. It's typical of governments. They don't want to spend money. This one will be the world's worst. It's morally corrupt, but morals don't count do they?' Terry Monk, 81, from Camberley in Surrey, also worked for Bradstock. He said the Government's decision to pursue growth with members' money was 'shameful'. He said: 'What they're forgetting, or choosing to ignore, is how that surplus has arisen in the first place and it was a combination of schemes' assets and members' contributions. 'They're trying to get money that they don't own to fund projects. I'm suspicious of the people we have in power at the moment.' For its part, the Government is expected to address retirement poverty in part two of its pensions review. It has already given £1.5bn back to retired miners and is considering handing over £2.3bn more. Ministers have also met with PPF and FAS members to hear their concerns, and accepted it was an 'important issue'. A Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) spokesman said: 'The Government is continuing to consider what we have heard from the PPF and FAS members on this issue.' A PPF spokesman said it welcomed the fresh consideration that the DWP was giving to compensation levels. They added: 'Given our financial strength, we think it's the right time to reduce costs for levy paying schemes and their employers and to consider the levels of indexation we pay our members.'

The Independent

an hour ago

• The Independent

Whitehall isn't working – here's how the PM can fix it

It never rains but it pours for Keir Starmer. He is fighting to stop the Iran crisis wrecking his one success as prime minister – a solid performance on foreign affairs in which he somehow maintains a productive relationship with Donald Trump. Insiders tell me Starmer's efforts are aimed at persuading Iran to enter meaningful talks on its nuclear programme and then convincing a highly sceptical US president that Iran is serious about negotiations. But if Trump goes ahead with his threat to bomb Iran, Starmer's special relationship with him could conceivably be stretched to breaking point. The prime minister can't escape his woes on domestic matters. His intense diplomacy was interrupted on Thursday by the unwelcome news that Vicky Foxcroft had resigned as a whip in protest at the government's cuts to disability benefits. She might not be the last to quit a government post before the crunch vote on £5bn of welfare cuts on 1 July, when Starmer faces the biggest Labour revolt of his premiership. Some parliamentary aides to ministers are on resignation watch. The government's robotic response to Foxcroft's departure, which failed to acknowledge her respected work as shadow disabilities minister before last year's election, angered some Labour MPs. Many will rebel with a heavy heart. They accept the need to reduce the ballooning welfare budget, but think the panicky cuts ahead of Rachel Reeves's spring statement symbolise how the government repeatedly reacts to events – in this case, living from hand to mouth to stick within the chancellor's fiscal rules – instead of having a long-term reform strategy. For some Whitehall-watchers, Starmer will not improve matters unless he reforms the centre of government. Critics think the relationship between No 10 and the Cabinet Office isn't working, leaving the other side of the triangle, the Treasury, to call the shots. The result: the winter fuel allowance catastrophe and now the welfare rebellion. Even some in Downing Street admit privately a shake-up is needed. Sam Freedman, a former special adviser and author of an excellent book, Failed State, suggests loosening the Treasury's grip by forming an Office of Budget Management, run jointly by the Treasury and Downing Street, which would oversee future spending reviews to ensure they reflect the PM's priorities. Freedman believes Starmer should consider a change Tony Blair introduced in his second term, which improved public service delivery. To prevent the whole operation being sucked into reacting to events, three units focused on different timescales: a policy unit on day-to-day oversight of Whitehall departments; a delivery unit on a small number of the PM's priorities (in Starmer's case, that would be his five missions); and a strategy unit on difficult long-term challenges. This ensured a more strategic state. One problem today is that the 'missions delivery unit' is based in the Cabinet Office rather than No 10. The Institute for Government (IFG) think tank has made a sensible proposal to abolish the Cabinet Office and set up an expanded 'Office of the Prime Minister', which would then take charge of the missions. Do such structures really matter? Yes. They are even more important when a PM makes a virtue out of his pragmatism and lack of ideology, as Starmer does. Like many predecessors, Starmer complains the Whitehall machine is slow to crank into life when he demands action. Often fair – but civil servants also have a point when they grumble that this government does not give them clear enough marching orders. For example, the government's own commitment to Starmer's missions – later relaunched as six milestones in his 'plan for change' – is now being questioned in Whitehall. Ministers promised the missions would be the 'guiding star' of the government-wide spending review unveiled by Reeves last week, and that cabinet ministers would collaborate on cross-departmental working and budgets. Only one problem: there was little money to go round. So the review again became a trial of strength between the Treasury and individual ministers trying to protect their departments. Starmer's 'mission-driven government' was caught in the crossfire and some Whitehall officials think the idea suffered serious damage. The IFG calculates that two of the missions – on economic growth and clean energy – did well out of the spending review, but the other three – on health, safer streets and opportunity – look difficult to achieve. Another reason why the missions matter is that this government doesn't have the option of pumping in extra cash to secure the improvements to public services voters want, as Blair and Gordon Brown enjoyed. Although Reeves won headlines for her big boost to building projects, her squeeze on day-to-day budgets is viewed in Whitehall as a 'standstill settlement'. So reform and efficiency savings will be needed to secure tangible improvements – not least in the NHS. The missions can play a part in prioritising these goals. With many public services still struggling in the voters' eyes, standing still will not win Labour a second term.

Sky News

4 hours ago

• Sky News

US warplanes transit through UK as Trump considers striking Iran

Flight tracking data shows extensive movement of US military aircraft towards the Middle East in recent days, including via the UK. Fifty-two US military planes were spotted flying over the eastern Mediterranean towards the Middle East between Monday and Thursday. That includes at least 25 that passed through Chania airport, on the Greek island of Crete - an eight-fold increase in the rate of arrivals compared to the first half of June. The movement of military equipment comes as the US considers whether to assist Israel in its conflict with Iran. Of the 52 planes spotted over the eastern Mediterranean, 32 are used for transporting troops or cargo, 18 are used for mid-air refuelling and two are reconnaissance planes. Forbes McKenzie, founder of McKenzie Intelligence, says that this indicates "the build-up of warfighting capability, which was not [in the region] before". Sky's data does not include fighter jets, which typically fly without publicly revealing their location. An air traffic control recording from Wednesday suggests that F-22 Raptors are among the planes being sent across the Atlantic, while 12 F-35 fighter jets were photographed travelling from the UK to the Middle East on Wednesday. Many US military planes are passing through UK A growing number of US Air Force planes have been passing through the UK in recent days. Analysis of flight tracking data at three key air bases in the UK shows 63 US military flights landing between 16 and 19 June - more than double the rate of arrivals earlier in June. On Thursday, Sky News filmed three US military C-17A Globemaster III transport aircraft and a C-130 Hercules military cargo plane arriving at Glasgow's Prestwick Airport. Flight tracking data shows that one of the planes arrived from an air base in Jordan, having earlier travelled there from Germany. What does Israel need from US? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on 15 March that his country's aim is to remove "two existential threats - the nuclear threat and the ballistic missile threat". Israel says that Iran is attempting to develop a nuclear bomb, though Iran says its nuclear facilities are only for civilian energy purposes. A US intelligence assessment in March concluded that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon. President Trump dismissed the assessment on Tuesday, saying: "I think they were very close to having one." Forbes McKenzie says the Americans have a "very similar inventory of weapons systems" to the Israelis, "but of course, they also have the much-talked-about GBU-57". The GBU-57 is a 30,000lb bomb - the largest non-nuclear bomb in existence. Mr McKenzie explains that it is "specifically designed to destroy targets which are very deep underground". Experts say it is the only weapon with any chance of destroying Iran's main enrichment site, which is located underneath a mountain at Fordow. Air-to-air refuelling could allow Israel to carry larger bombs Among the dozens of US aircraft that Sky News tracked over the eastern Mediterranean in recent days, more than a third (18 planes) were designed for air-to-air refuelling. "These are crucial because Israel is the best part of a thousand miles away from Iran," says Sky News military analyst Sean Bell. "Most military fighter jets would struggle to do those 2,000-mile round trips and have enough combat fuel." The ability to refuel mid-flight would also allow Israeli planes to carry heavier munitions, including bunker-buster bombs necessary to destroy the tunnels and silos where Iran stores many of its missiles. Satellite imagery captured on 15 June shows the aftermath of Israeli strikes on a missile facility near the western city of Kermanshah, which destroyed at least 12 buildings at the site. At least four tunnel entrances were also damaged in the strikes, two of which can be seen in the image below. Writing for Jane's Defence Weekly, military analyst Jeremy Binnie says it looked like the tunnels were "targeted using guided munitions coming in at angles, not destroyed from above using penetrator bombs, raising the possibility that the damage can be cleared, enabling any [missile launchers] trapped inside to deploy". "This might reflect the limited payloads that Israeli aircraft can carry to Iran," he adds. Penetrator bombs, also known as bunker-busters, are much heavier than other types of munitions and as a result require more fuel to transport. Israel does not have the latest generation of refuelling aircraft, Mr Binnie says, meaning it is likely to struggle to deploy a significant number of penetrator bombs. Israel has struck most of Iran's western missile bases Even without direct US assistance, the Israeli air force has managed to inflict significant damage on Iran's missile launch capacity. Sky News has confirmed Israeli strikes on at least five of Iran's six known missile bases in the west of the country. On Monday, the IDF said that its strategy of targeting western launch sites had forced Iran to rely on its bases in the centre of the country, such as Isfahan - around 1,500km (930 miles) from Israel. Among Iran's most advanced weapons are three types of solid-fuelled rockets fitted with highly manoeuvrable warheads: Fattah-1, Kheibar Shekan and Haj Qassam. The use of solid fuel makes these missiles easy to transport and fast to launch, while their manoeuvrable warheads make them better at evading Israeli air defences. However, none of them are capable of striking Israel from such a distance. Iran is known to possess five types of missile capable of travelling more than 1,500km, but only one of these uses solid fuel - the Sijjil-1. On 18 June, Iran claimed to have used this missile against Israel for the first time. Iran's missiles have caused significant damage Iran's missile attacks have killed at least 24 people in Israel and wounded hundreds, according to the Israeli foreign ministry. The number of air raid alerts in Israel has topped 1,000 every day since the start of hostilities, reaching a peak of 3,024 on 15 June. Iran has managed to strike some government buildings, including one in the city of Haifa on Friday. And on 13 June, in Iran's most notable targeting success so far, an Iranian missile impacted on or near the headquarters of Israel's defence ministry in Tel Aviv. Most of the Iranian strikes verified by Sky News, however, have hit civilian targets. These include residential buildings, a school and a university. On Thursday, one missile hit the Soroka Medical Center in Beersheba, southern Israel's main hospital. More than 70 people were injured, according to Israel's health ministry. Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said that Iran had struck a nearby technology park containing an IDF cyber defence training centre, and that the "blast wave caused superficial damage to a small section" of the hospital. However, the technology park is in fact 1.2km away from where the missile struck. Photos of the hospital show evidence of a direct hit, with a large section of one building's roof completely destroyed. Iran successfully struck the technology park on Friday, though its missile fell in an open area, causing damage to a nearby residential building but no casualties. Israel has killed much of Iran's military leadership It's not clear exactly how many people Israel's strikes in Iran have killed, or how many are civilians. Estimates by human rights groups of the total number of fatalities exceed 600. What is clear is that among the military personnel killed are many key figures in the Iranian armed forces, including the military's chief of staff, deputy head of intelligence and deputy head of operations. Key figures in the powerful Revolutionary Guard have also been killed, including the militia's commander-in-chief, its aerospace force commander and its air defences commander. On Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that US assistance was not necessary for Israel to win the war. "We will achieve all our objectives and hit all of their nuclear facilities," he said. "We have the capability to do that." 3:49 Forbes McKenzie says that while Israel has secured significant victories in the war so far, "they only have so much fuel, they only have so many munitions". "The Americans have an ability to keep up the pace of operations that the Israelis have started, and they're able to do it for an indefinite period of time." Additional reporting by data journalist Joely Santa Cruz and OSINT producers Freya Gibson, Lina-Sirine Zitout and Sam Doak.