Follow this topicFollow this topic Knowledge » House prices

Is overcrowding to blame for high house prices?

Cliff D'Arcy
by Lovemoney Staff Cliff D'Arcy on 02 July 2012  |  Comments 26 comments

Some experts claim population density explains high house prices in the UK. But does it?

Is overcrowding to blame for high house prices?

American humorist and satirist Mark Twain once remarked: "Buy land; they're not making it anymore."

This was Twain's witty reference to the law of supply and demand, which states that when the supply of an item is squeezed, but demand remains healthy, then its price rises. Likewise, over-supply or falling demand causes prices to fall.

Of course, this rule also applies to houses, because we all need a place to live. What's more, thanks to immigration, divorce and other social trends, new households are being formed at a higher rate than Britain builds new houses. So the supply of housing is being squeezed over time and, if demand rises, then so too will prices.

A crowded island?

During the housing boom of 1995 to 2007, housing pundits, mortgage lenders and landlords often fell back on the same old argument for ever-rising house prices. They claimed that the UK was a small, crowded island and, thanks to a rising population, demand for houses would always rise.

Alas, this argument came spectacularly unstuck from the summer of 2007 onwards, when the credit crunch forced banks to stop lending wildly. As homes loans became more difficult to get, demand for mortgages collapsed and house prices soon followed suit.

Thus, is it really true that the UK (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) is a crowded island? The answer very much depends on your definition of 'crowded'.

In 2010, the population of the UK was over 61.5 million people, of which 51.5 million were in England. Scotland had 5.2 million inhabitants, Wales had three million and Northern Ireland had 1.8 million. In other words, about five-sixths (84%) of the UK population live in England, the UK's largest country.

The total area of the UK is over 94,000 square miles. Therefore, on average, there are more than 650 people for every square mile of the UK. However, as the saying goes, "Averages invite comparisons", because they often mask a wide range of results.

England is most crowded

To show you what I mean, here are the population densities for each of the UK's four countries (sorted from highest to lowest):

Country

Population

(million)

Area

(sq. miles)

Population

density (people per square mile)

England

51.5

50,350

1,023

Wales

3.0

8,020

374

Northern Ireland

1.8

5,470

329

Scotland

5.2

30,410

171

UK

61.5

94,250

653

As you can see, England is far more crowded than the rest of the UK, with 1,023 residents per square mile. In Wales and Northern Ireland, population density is roughly a third of that of England, with respective densities of 374 and 329 people per square mile. Scotland's population density is a mere 171 people per square mile, roughly a sixth of England's population density.

At first glance, it does appears that England is crowded, but the UK's other three countries are much less congested.

Ah, but property markets are local

Then again, people don't tend to live on mountain tops or in lakes. What matters is how much habitable land is available for settlement. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have large areas of rugged, uninhabitable terrain that cut down on living space.

In addition, tradition and trade have caused the UK's population to become highly focused on metropolitan areas. So what becomes clear is that the UK is far from crowded at a national level. However, at local and regional levels, we have some very large populations crammed into relatively tight regions.

For example, here are 15 of the UK's biggest cities, including all four capital cities (sorted from most to least populous):

City

Population

(000s)

Greater London

7,754

Birmingham

1,017

Leeds

799

Glasgow

580

Sheffield

556

Manchester

499

Edinburgh

450

Liverpool

445

Bristol

433

Cardiff

325

Leicester

307

Coventry

301

Bradford

294

Belfast

268

Kingston upon Hull

264

Together, these 15 major cities have a total population of 14.3 million and account for nearly a quarter (23%) of the UK's total population. As a result, house prices in these crowded metropolitan areas are almost always higher than in outlying and rural areas.

In short, many of us modern Brits prefer to live in cities, often to be closer to where work is. We bid up house prices in these regions, making these homes more expensive to buy and maintain. More than 200 years after the Industrial Revolution, this news should come as no surprise!

Show me the bubbles

So far, I am unconvinced that over-crowding caused the housing boom of the nineties and noughties. While I see it as a contributory factor (most notably in London, parts of the south east and in coastal areas), I sincerely doubt that it was the major contributor to our 12-year housing boom.

To find out more, I checked population densities in other countries to establish whether these nations experienced any house price bubble in recent times.

My next table lists 16 leading nations with Western-style economies, together with their populations, population densities and whether (in my opinion) these countries witnessed a house price boom or bubble in the noughties. Here they are, sorted from highest to lowest population density:

Nation

Population

(million)

Population

density (number of people per square mile)

Housing

bubble?

Singapore

5

18,513

Y

Hong Kong

7

16,431

Y

Taiwan

23

1,673

Y

Netherlands

17

1,046


India

1,210

953


Japan

127

873


UK

61.5

653

Y

Germany

82

593


Italy

60

518


China

1,352

363

Y

France

63

295


Spain

46

236

Y

Ireland

5

168

Y

United States

314

83

Y

New Zealand

4

41

Y

Australia

23

8

Y

The first three countries – Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan – are all incredibly densely populated, financially advanced, island economies in the fast-growing Far East. These factors help to explain why their house prices exploded over the past decade or so.

Conversely, the next three major countries – the Netherlands, India and Japan – are all relatively densely populated, but have seen no housing bubble in the past decade. Indeed, house prices in Japan have been declining for more than two decades, since its housing bubble burst in 1989.

Likewise, the UK and Germany have similar population densities, yet we Brits experienced one heck of a housing boom, while house prices have declined in real terms (after inflation) in Germany over the past decade.

At the bottom of my table, Spain, Ireland, the US, Australia and New Zealand all experienced amazing housing booms (and busts), despite their low population densities.

So, on a global scale, population density does not seem to correlate with housing booms. What then caused prices to race out of control?

A national mania

For me, the answer lies in two things: access to cheap credit and a national mania for getting rich through property.

We Brits certainly had both in the boom years, before our bubble burst in 2007. Similarly, the five countries at the end of my table underwent credit-fuelled booms as get-rich-quick 'property mania' swept these nations.

In summary, I am not convinced that rising population density over the past 20 years fuelled the UK's property bubble. For me, risky mortgages (125% Together loans from Northern Rock, anyone?) were the prime driver of our housing folly!

More on property

Buying is cheaper than renting

What's the 'right' price of your house?

Why house sellers are deluded

How to deal with property chain problems

Government backs self-build homes

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (26)

  • JRAY100
    Love rating 50
    JRAY100 said

    Agreed... largely unregulated, irresponsible lending... artificially low interest rates... market propped up from market forces compared with the Spanish and USA markets... re-adjustment will be gradual.

    Report on 02 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • ajrr1
    Love rating 11
    ajrr1 said

    Cliff - I'm sure many will disagree with your conclusions and the data you've chosen to support them, but I certainly found your thoughts on this complicated topic very interesting. Cheap credit and our obsession with property has quite obviously distorted the market.

    I am hoping for static property prices for the next few years. 'Most' people on repayment mortgages (like me) could sit still, and (assuming salaries pick up over time) new buyers may eventually have a chance of getting into the market.

    I really feel for, amongst others, people approaching retirement who would be considering downsizing and people stuck on interest only mortgages - but sadly there will be lots of losers from the mess we've got ourselves in.

    Thanks for the article.

    Report on 02 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • SevenPillars
    Love rating 70
    SevenPillars said

    The traditional way of looking at this, especially by vested interests in the UK is to concentrate on supply/demand issues as the reason for high prices. Lack of supply + excess demand will equal high and ever higher prices. Nice and simple, except it ignores the fact that booms have to be financed. Along with such housing booms tends to come irresponsible ways of lending with ever new schemes and easy mortgage products to finance it. Add to that lax regulation, greed, fraud and criminality will then ride the same boom. Without the willingness to finance there can be no boom. You may get stagnation, as we have now, but housing booms need more credit to sustain them as quite simply the vast majority of buyers do not have the cash to purchase outright.

    Report on 02 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • meldrewreborn
    Love rating 45
    meldrewreborn said

    Its all down to supply and demand - but at several levels. There are many who would like to buy at current prices but are unable to raise the larger deposits or else meet the more stringent background chaecks on income and the like. The availability of mortgages is clearly another aspect of supply and demand. Since the underlying trend is for more households in the UK - we're living longer, in samller size of households and have net immigration - and we're not building enough new property to meet the higher number of housholds, then its inevitable that the long term trend will be for prices to rise. The increase will not however be steady, and in the short term prices may stop growing or fall.

    As for your cheap jibe at Northern Rock you should note that after the split into good bank and bad bank the so called duff 125% mortgages were put into the bad bank. The shock is that this former part of Northern Rock is profitable!! They might have been big loans but they were sold to those with good credit histories. However I agree that in general credit was too easy to get and sold to many who should never have got it. Northern Rock got into trouble because it had promised mortgages to customers and then found it couldn't get the funding itself to meet those promises because of the breakdown of inter bank lending, not because its loans were seen as reckless or unprofitable.

    Report on 02 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Basia02a
    Love rating 43
    Basia02a said

    A very interesting artilce, and whilst the UK culture has a major effect density obviously is a major influence. Take England's(by far the largest population) population density rather than the the UK's, and we move up to being one of the most densly populated countries in the world. If we had the density figures for London (more people than either Singapore or Hong Kong on the figures above) this would in part explain the continuing housing boom in London.

    Of course funding still has to be available. The Spainish bubble was in part an export from the UK, and one suspects this might have been an influence on Irish prices.

    Report on 02 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • poppasmurf
    Love rating 31
    poppasmurf said

    Doesn't explain Australia or New Zealand? or have I missed something.

    Report on 02 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • poppasmurf
    Love rating 31
    poppasmurf said

    Is overcrowding to blame for high house prices?

    No

    Replace overcrowding with the word

    GREED

    Report on 02 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • Iamcoldsteve
    Love rating 311
    Iamcoldsteve said

    It is also our cultural leanings that force house prices. We have been conditioned to think that buying is something to aspire to, where in other parts of Europe, renting is far more common and affordable.

    Another thing is borrowing stupidity. The NR Together mortgage CAN be a good thing, if it is used correctly. Eg, We bought our first house with a together mortgage. BUT instead of spending the 'extra' on a holiday or new car etc, we spent it on the house. The particular house needed modernisation, and it was paid for by the extra money. When the renovations were completed the house was worth about twice what we paid for it. Partly because of the general rise in house prices (very early noughties) but chiefly because of what we had done to it. So the 125% LTV came down to about 65%.

    Report on 02 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • MouthyRob
    Love rating 14
    MouthyRob said

    BBC News website last week ran a report claiming that only c2% of the UK is 'built on'.

    Report on 02 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • bengilda
    Love rating 77
    bengilda said

    Although there are localities that are somewhat short of housing it is largely a temporary demographic "blip" that will usually disappear after a few years. Where these shortages occur it will most often be found that public owned accommodation is under occupied and that revision of the public housing regulation to restrict occupancy to actual needs would solve much of the perceived housing shortages. This in turn would ease or eliminate the demand and result in house prices also easing.

    Report on 02 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Basia02a
    Love rating 43
    Basia02a said

    Hi Lamcoldsteve,

    Buying is cheaper than renting as has been highlighted by previous articles. Believe me, when you retire owning you own home makes a massive difference compared to the people I know who are still renting at £700 to £1200 a month and looking foward to another 20 to 30 years of rises.

    There is a need to shift the UK culture towards renting rather than buying to accommodate a mobile workforce however.

    There is an even bigger need for social housing, as said, a lot of which was sold off cheap in the eighties.

    There is not enough housing in the right places in this country, or, not enough jobs in the right places.

    Report on 03 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • jamiecfc1
    Love rating 39
    jamiecfc1 said

    UK is ridiculously overcrowded, which is why the NHS (as an example) is overstretched to bursting. Labour's ineptitude over the eastern european fiasco is largely to blame for that. However overpricing has been the same way since early 2000's, fuelled by greedy estate agents, fatcat bankers stuffed with bonuses inflating the top end of the market pushing the rest up to keep pace and gullible punters paying stupid prices. I don't know why the government keeps banging on about building MORE houses - sooner or later there will come a point when a country not creating jobs (or giving them to foreigners who have no interest in buying UK property) will have no-one left who can actually afford to buy.

    Report on 03 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • The Democrat
    Love rating 21
    The Democrat said

    It is the housing bubble that has done so much to damage social mobility over the past 15 years or so. We have allowed people with real money like Mr Mittal and Mr Ambramovich to throw their money around at the top end of the market and prices have rippled out from there. Bankers by and large are minnows to the likes of Messrs Mittal and Abramovich and it is very probably the bankers' wives who are telling their husbands Notting Hill or nothing that has created the money or nothing culture that has corrosively destroyed the trust those institutions formerly enjoyed.

    Council House sales in principle were a perfectly good idea - providing they were replaced, which of course wasn't the case.

    Answer - simples. An agressive and rising property tax from around 500,000 and ring fence the money raise to build social housing. With one proviso. It must be where it is needed. It that offends the NIMBY brigade whether in town or country so be it. It must not be allowed to deflect the policy. In 10 years we could end this property madness. All it needs is politicians with guts. Which is why, naturally, it would fail.

    Report on 03 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • franknstein
    Love rating 1
    franknstein said

    If "we" are "ridiculously overcrowded" then why not do us a favour Jamiecfc, and emigrate. More guff about foreigners being given jobs - people who come to work in this country usually stay - Saxons, Danish, Normans, Huguenots, Dutch, Italians, Germans, Polish, Jews, Chinese, West Indians, Africans, Asians and Americans (300,000 - don't we wish they'd all go back so we didn't have to hear their voices and opinions on Radio 4!). Interestingly 1 in 10 private houses are supposedly unoccupied and there was talk of legislation to remedy that. Dearest Maggie T. caused much of this problem by selling off public housing stock in the '80s - and not replacing it. In my view this housing boom and bust was/is down to middle-class greed in realising immense profits from a life-necessity - just as we all did when Maggie + cronies gave the green light to privatise the railways, gas, electric and telecommunications industries. Strange now that a lot of those same middle-classes are welcoming their sons and daughters back to the nest because they can't afford housing (or is that just the poor class?). I expect my government to look after its poorest - not to victimise them. Maggie said it was ok to be greedy, New Labour washed its hands of reclaiming what had been ripped off and now Cameron is busy enshrining the whole mucky ideology. It's about time good (healthy), cheap housing (and public transport) was recognised as an essential - in the same way that clean water, sewers, the NHS , heating, power and social support systems are recognised - only the very wealthy can get away without these.

    Report on 05 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 599
    Mike10613 said

    It is supply and demand that causes the housing bubbles. We are an island and so land is in short supply, but that isn't the only problem. Even in countries where land isn't in short supply like China, land suitable for housing with the right infrastructure is in short supply. Often when there are plans for new housing there are planning problems because the Nimby's object. Cheap credit and high wages also stimulates demand too much. First time buyers struggle to get a mortgage because they can't save for a deposit because the bank of England constantly devalues their savings. The government and local authorities stand in the way of new house building and greed means many houses were left to lie empty. We now need a building program that provides affordable social housing to address a quite different overcrowding problem.

    Report on 09 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • nickpike
    Love rating 270
    nickpike said

    Mark Twain is no expert. Have you seen what you can buy in nice parts of the US for $50k?

    You're correct, it is availability of mortgage money, known as mortgage acceleration. When the gimmicks run out from this meddling government, money supply will dry up and prices will crash, they have to, as proved in several other countries.

    Report on 09 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    "For me, risky mortgages (125% Together loans from Northern Rock, anyone?) were the prime driver of our housing folly!"

    Cliff is bang on here. House prices will rise to the maximum that people are willing and able to pay. And anyway talk about the "supply and demand" myth is just folly. After all, if all houses cost £1 how many would you buy?

    And now on a slightly different point I find it very disturbing that no one has mentioned Land Value Tax. The idea behind this is that we tax the value of the unmodified land (what the land would cost without any buildings etc built on it). This would keep prices stable and make those that profit the most from the wealth created by the community (the rich) pay the most while those that profit the least (the poor) pay the least.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

    Report on 10 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Iamcoldsteve
    Love rating 311
    Iamcoldsteve said

    LoC.

    But houses would never be at £1, because they would have all been bought long before the price dropped to that level and no-one would go straight in at that price. So that argument is fundementally flawed.

    And I really cannot see how LVT could ever be implemented and managed. It seems a massive undertaking to assess the land value, and then re-assess every year? to establish any changes due to developments / planning consent etc closeby.

    Also, do you advocate this as extra revenue for Gov't or to replace an existing tax?

    Report on 10 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    Iamcoldsteve,

    Sorry maybe I didn't make my points adequately clear.

    "But houses would never be at £1"

    A regular argument is that the price of housing is simply a function of supply and demand and finance therefore doesn't come into it. But let me give two examples:

    I have enough money to walk into a supermarket and buy all the ice cream. But even though I like ice cream I won't do that (for hopefully obvious reasons). Demand could therefore be said to be saturated. Even if the price were to be dropped to 1p a tub they still all wouldn't all sell out in a day.

    Housing is different. The price of housing will rise until an equilibrium is reached between the number of houses available and the amount of money available to buy those houses. The more money there is then the higher the prices will become. Demand is therefore not an issue.

    The Northern Rock example given by Cliff is a good one in that they were willing to loan up to 115% of the house price. This obviously allowed prices to rise and was almost certainly a major contributing factor in the house price bubble, which persists to this day.

    "And I really cannot see how LVT could ever be implemented and managed."

    Well it's currently implemented and operated in a number of places around the world and... I was going link to the relevant part of Wikipedia to show you but it seems that it's been subtlety defaced. Again.

    Instead have a look at this:

    http://www.labourland.org/downloads/papers/chapters/4.pdf

    And this:

    http://www.labourland.org/lvt/what_is_lvt.php

    [Incidentally I'm not a Labour supporter]

    "Also, do you advocate this as extra revenue for Gov't or to replace an existing tax?"

    This is an area for debate. Personally I'd reduce VAT to 15% (it's EU legal minimum) and charge it only on luxury goods/services. But that said it might not be feasible and as I don't work for the treasury I can't really say.

    Report on 10 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Iamcoldsteve
    Love rating 311
    Iamcoldsteve said

    I am aware that LVT was adopted in certain areas around the world. BUT these are mainly relatively small 'zones' in comparison to the UK. Implementing such a system in the UK would be a massive undertaking to set up and maintain every year? or whatever time interval was agreed. It just seem very expensive to setup and maintain, and wide open to abuse.

    Would the reduction in other revenues offset the full cost? I can't see how. So the total 'take' increases and extra losses are made, when compared to the current system (which isn't perfect, obviously....)

    Report on 11 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    Hi Iamcoldsteve,

    With regards to your first point there are several country-wide examples of LVT such as Singapore, which incidentally has a higher population density than here in the UK. In their particular case they use it to reduce taxes on productive activities and have even done as I would do and reduced VAT to 5% and only charge it on luxury items.

    As for your second point we already gather most of the needed data in both the Ordnance Survey and Land Registry. In fact the highest cost comes not from maintaining the system, which can be done on a continual bases using the above sources, but from finding out who actually owns large parts of the UK.

    The problem here is that the Land Registry only contains details of sales which have happened after it was set up. This means that any land owned 'in corporation' by wealthy lords and families before this event can be transferred or inherited without showing up in the land registry.

    It's another reason why LVT such a good idea and probably a significant reason why so many Tories are dead set against it.

    Report on 11 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Iamcoldsteve
    Love rating 311
    Iamcoldsteve said

    BUT, simply searching land registry or OS will NOT give the value of the land, even if the owner could be traced.

    It would need accurate assessment ON THE GROUND and cannot be done remotely for large swathes of land. How can a plot that has a house on it be accurately assessed from LR or OS records?

    Seems a massive task and expensive to setup and maintain.

    Report on 11 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    I haven't got much time so I'll try and keep this short.

    Initial implementation is the most expensive part. The Land Registry uses OS data for it's job of land accounting. All we do is add to this by gathering land value data over a number of years and this can be acquired quite easily though existing mechanisms, e.g. by using the same system of land surveying as used by the big house builders. Additionally this method in particular has the advantage of being both cheap and well understood.

    Also most areas of land are for the purposes of value zoneable. This is aided by the fact that most of the UK (~98%) is not built upon and exists as large contiguous areas.

    And for maintenance, this is easy as we can re-survey on sale or periodically as happens now.

    And lastly if, despite the implementation examples previously given, you still think this isn't possible then you might want to look up the very similar but much more difficult Schedule 'A' taxation system, which was in use in this country up until about 1962.

    Report on 12 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Iamcoldsteve
    Love rating 311
    Iamcoldsteve said

    I have limited time so will also be short.

    I do not think it is as easy as you claim. In fact, far from it. Also referencing a tax system that was effectively aboloshed 50 years ago (well before any computerisation) is pretty pointless as the methods used would be useless in the modern age.

    You say that 98% of land is undeveloped, and only 2% is, BUT the developed land has a completely disproportionate number of owners. Say approx 25 million homes in UK. These would need surveying in order to establish the land value without the development. Time for each survey? Even if each survey only took 5 minutes it would still be a total of 237.8 man years to complete. And that is only for a miniscule amount of the total land on the UK.

    Who would want to pay for this (unneccessary) work? I certainly don't, as I don't think it would give value for money.

    Report on 12 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    OK, I'm back from my night work.

    My key points here are:

    1. Other, more densely populated counties seem to have no problem, so why should we?

    2. A tax system that was abolished circa. 50 years ago, was far more complicated that what I'm proposing and which occurred before computerization? Well that says something about the cost and difficulty doesn't it?

    3. Your point that developed land has a number of owners: This doesn't make any difference. Whether a terrace has been merged, broken up into flats or left as-is doesn't matter. The cost of accounting will still be the same as that of a field of equivalent size with nothing built on it.

    All we do is cut the land into zones and value those zones. It what the house builders do and I'm told that from a surveyor's perspective this is easy. Now overlay Land Registry data to determine ownership percentage and voila.

    Report on 13 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Iamcoldsteve
    Love rating 311
    Iamcoldsteve said

    I don't get how you just measure the area of land and that is it's value. It has to be taken in context of where it is, what communications, services etc are fed into it and surround it.

    The value of land in a large city centre is completely different and far more complex than some undeveloped land in the middle of the peak district.

    All I am saying is that setup time / costs and maintenance cost are far too high to ever get this going on an even, and fair basis.

    As my example just to cover land with housing built, 237.8 man years (would equate to about 1000 man years assuming an 8 hour working day and 261 days worked a year) - IF the 25 million housing plots only took 5 mins each to assess the land value.

    Can't see it happening, can you?

    Report on 13 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (3.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.9% to 3.5% (T&Cs apply).

Barclaycard 25Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 25 months (2.4% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.5% to 2.4% (T&Cs apply)

Virgin Money Credit Card MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.99% fee) Representative 17.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 17.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 17.9% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV1