Keeping your home vs Instant Property portfolio.

Some vets do in fact encourage people to brush their dogs' teeth, but that's by the by. Eating foods high in sugar does not directly have an adverse effect on teeth. Dogs don't suck boiled sweets, and if you feed them sugar-laden baked beans, they'll just wolf them down. So there's less sugary stuff going to be adhering to their teeth, especially if they wash the beans down with beer. Not stout, mind, too sweet!

No. Well, not much. If you heat the central living area to your preferred temp (say 293K), the unused rooms will be kept frost-free by the waste heat from the central area leaking through corridors and walls. This will probably be enough not to need any help from the radiators in those unused rooms.

The point is that by keeping the temp in the unused rooms down you are paying *less* to heat them than you would if you were to heat them to 293K.

I do. Of course it depends on what you mean by unused. I totally agree that with current technology [*] it is impractical to adjust radiator controls all the time, if what you're trying to do is save heating costs for a room's unused portion *of each day*, but where a room is more or less permanently unused, you don't want to be keeping it at living temperature all the time.

[*] by "current technology" I don't mean what we *could* install (motorised valves remote controlled by computer -- which would be great) but what most of us *actually have* installed (TRVs).

You don't need to make sure the doors are shut, because you don't actually want to prevent heat leaking into them. You simply want them to be less warm than the rest of the house, but you don't want them to be bloody cold either, so that you're not too uncomfortable when you occasionally wander into them to get at some of the junk stored there.

Reply to
Ronald Raygun
Loading thread data ...

"Andy Pandy" wrote

The more respectable owners do it for them.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

You think it costs anywhere near as much as heating the room to living standard?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

That either means that you don't know anyone with a big house, or those that you do are fools. Which is it?

Reply to
Tim

Yuk.

I usually have no pudding (and eat more main course instead, and keep the fruit for later as a snack).

Better than crisps, I suppose, but do you have smaller main meals to compensate? Seems to me you may be overdoing it, especially if you're starting every day with porridge *as well*.

If it's both more expensive and less healthy, and it's with the same people and not for the wallpaper, then why do it? I guess it can only be to get a break from cooking/tidying/washing up. So it's *not* just for the food.

What *about* a take-away? It's not more expensive (than cooking for yourself) because it's less healthy, it's more expensive because you have to pay someone else to cook it.

Time for some research, then. :-(

Quite. And butter is the healthier option, being more natural, while margarine is full of nasty synthetic chemicals.

Oh all right then.

Swap? For what? Chocolate? :-)

Reply to
Ronald Raygun

Agreed.

Instead of your fruit snack. Actually when I say "we" I meant mainly the kids.

Why do you think that? I can't cook curry nearly as well as the local Indian. I can't make pizza nearly as well as the local Italian. We go for the food.

OK, so fish from the fishmongers is more expensive than fish you catch yourself because you have to pay someone else to catch it, store it and transport it. So what? Most of the cost of any sort of food is the cost of other people doing things to facilitate you eventually dining on it.

If you're going to argue that the cost of "someone cooking" the food shouldn't be taken into account, then why should the cost of someone catching/farming/transporting/storing/retailing the food be taken into account?

Possibly the "fast food" style frozen chips which are just reconstituted rubbish and design to catch as much fat as possible by having a high surface area/volume ratio.

So you think natural saturated fat is less harmful than a few E numbers?

Pears. Other types of apples. Blackberries. Clothes. Not officially, it's "have a few apples". Next week they come round "have a few pears" etc.

Reply to
Andy Pandy

How did a thread on property investment get onto canine dental hygiene?

K? You're just showing off now.

OK...

OK, but the point is you are still paying to heat those rooms, even if it's less than you pay for heating the rest of the house.

Reply to
Andy Pandy

It costs *something*, and that needs accounting for.

What do you think?

Hint - look at the quoted text in your first reply to me in this thread.

Reply to
Andy Pandy

Absolutely - that is effectively BTL though - you are renting out the excess property.

I thought it had already made it in NI?

OK, but flats are usually in rather larger blocks than a block of 3. A flat may only have one external wall, and may have other flats above and below.

Reply to
Andy Pandy

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Ermmm - look above. It was *you* who brought it up!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

The point is that you were *wrong* when you said it would cost

*three* times as much to heat a house costing three times as much!
Reply to
Tim

"Andy Pandy" wrote

I suppose you must hang around with fools. That doesn't mean that *all* owners of large houses act the same way!

Reply to
Tim

You are *wrong* when you said that I said that! Nah na na na na!

I said "A 5 bed detached house will likely have 3 times the heating cost of a 1 bedroom flat at a third of the price."

Note the word "likely". And that was based on the detatched house having a much greater external wall/volume area then the average flat. A point which you've avoided.

Reply to
Andy Pandy

"Andy Pandy" wrote

So, you agree that extra space would be useful. You're just too much of a skin-flint to pay the small cost for it!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

But much of which will not need to be heated anywhere near as much!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Nothing to work out. Your comment appears non-sensical.

Reply to
Tim

Especially on usenet :-)

Well if they're stupid enough to have usused rooms then they'll often be stupid enough to heat them.

Reply to
Andy Pandy

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Exactly. That was *wrong*.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

I did. Doesn't make any difference - it's still wrong!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Ignored, because it has a much smaller effect on the issue than not having to heat certain areas upto the same "living" temperature.

Reply to
Tim

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Why can't you make your mind up? First you think the rooms will be unused. Then you say they'd get used. Now you're back to thinking they'd be unused....

You can't even get your story straight!

Reply to
Tim

Wow! Just think - this started off as a sensible discussion about BTL, gearing, the likely course of future house prices and so. Look where it's ended up.

Reply to
GB

Yawn. You're getting very boring. Bye bye.

Reply to
Andy Pandy

That's right! I'm too tight fisted to want to pay thousands of pounds a year to save me 5 mins of effort a week.

Er, yes, as you've already said. The overall result is that the average 5-bed detatched will cost around 3 times as much to heat as a 1-bed flat a third of the price.

Reply to
Andy Pandy

I *knew* I shouldn't have replied to Tim.....

Reply to
Andy Pandy

In message , Andy Pandy writes

How do you know?

Reply to
John Boyle

yes I have.

it is not an enjoyable job

I do too, but I am reluctant to do so til mid October, just because I cannot let this place go for that long

because you alleged something or other that he did, and he asked why you were giving him accommodation if he hadn't asked for it

Reply to
marika

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.