BTL - long term winner?
Discussion
Mr Snap said:
fblm said:
When was this? The various mandatory deposit protection schemes in place the last 6-7 years make it a PITA for landlords to recover costs, let alone fraudulent ones and challenging deductions is free and very much weighted in the tenants favour. Secondly what references? You don't need to have references from previous landlords for anything. The law is weighted in the tenants favour and you don't need a penny to challenge your landlord, disputes are arbitrated by the deposit schemes for which the landlord pays. Jesus after many years of multiple rentals and never deducting a penny, I wanted to make a small deduction for cleaning last month and my agents advised against it just in case they challenged it despite already agreeing to pay for a bed they destroyed. Not to put too fine a point on it if it were my daughter getting fleeced multiple times I'd be thinking she's not exactly telling me the whole story!
It's happening now. My daughter suffers from a mental health disorder that means she's incredibly trusting & honest, she would be mortified if she'd actually damaged anyone's property. She's nearly 40, has a full time job and wishes to be completely independent, but she's pretty much doomed to remain in student type properties as her mental health problems aren't bad enough to put her into sheltered accommodation (I call it 'lack of care in the community').Edited by fblm on Wednesday 23 July 05:34
What the law states and what is actually happening on the street in Brighton (where there are thousands of students fighting over limited amounts of property) are not necessarily the same thing. Agents do insist on references and deposits are regularly held back, I'm sure they might easily capitulate but that doesn't stop them trying it on.
If the agent is "holding back" the deposit then they are breaking the law, and the tenant will be in line for 3x the deposit in compensation. Deposit protection is there to protect the tenant from any dodgy goings on, and is heavily weighted towards the tenant.
Not doing things right, such as failing to send the right paperwork at the right time will see the agent/landlord fined 3x the deposit.
markcoznottz said:
They would find something else to moan about , it's the british disease, basically a form of Marxism. To basically try and stop others who are legally getting on in life and doing 'better than them '. I can't remember many lefties moaning about Newlabs pension raid, which in part caused the btl rush....
I fail to see what's 'Marxist' or 'leftie' about wanting people to be able to afford to buy houses to live in? Wasn't that the basis of much of Thatcher's politics?Still, big PH points for making an anti-leftie statement!
Sheepshanks said:
fblm said:
So the renter cares if the landlord has a mortgage? Weird, I never did.
You should care a bit - if the landlord doesn't pay the mortgage you can be turfed out with virtually no notice.Yes the strict legal position is much harsher but we are talking reality and people will play the system to the very limit if they can.
It's like all these people who tell you that 'out of the blue I'm going to be repossessed next month". Nar, you'll have known about your lack of payment for quite some time before the lender has even got as far as doing sending you strongly worded e-mails, you'll then have had months on end of discussions and revised payment schedules if you actually did anything more than act like an ostrich. Last family I know who were repossessed hadn't made a full payment for nearly 5 years by the time the court finally granted the possession order...
Axionknight said:
Avoiders, as in, those who are avoiding, not that ALL are avoiding. Unless you are saying that every BTL landlord in the land is on the financial level, so to speak?
Jesus.
Most probably are avoiding some level of tax. For example - if you own a BTL property - you are allowed to offset the mortgage interest, letting agent fees, maintenance and repair costs, insurance etc against the rental income for tax purposes.Jesus.
https://www.gov.uk/renting-out-a-property/paying-t...
I doubt any BTL landlords who have a mortgage on their property don't do this - and it's all "on the financial level".....so to speak.
What you seem to be describing sounds more like evasion - not avoidance.
Rude-boy said:
Yes there might be changes ahead but the worst that BTL's will see is their 'tax free' interest going.
There are two structural changes simmering along in the policy think tanks which will significantly impact BTL. This is the short term one, and is not aimed at BTL but will catch it. There's an acceptance that the tax treatment of debt versus equity is no longer fit for purpose thanks to the stretching of the rules by buy-out firms. Interest tax relief is going to be completely overhauled and as a result the finances for BTL will look much less enticing. Big, international change with huge implications so it will take a while but it is on its way.Second one is going to be the opening up of planning and building restrictions to encourage enormous housing programs. Plenty of ways to do this but it's a simple policy to introduce and by increasing supply will reduce asset price inflation. Lots of incentive tweaks available too - for instance, designate an area, say 30 miles radius round Coventry or Hull or Swansea, make it a tax free zone for ten years, match transport investment pound for pound and sit back and watch it fly.
Moonhawk said:
Axionknight said:
Avoiders, as in, those who are avoiding, not that ALL are avoiding. Unless you are saying that every BTL landlord in the land is on the financial level, so to speak?
Jesus.
Most probably are avoiding some level of tax. For example - if you own a BTL property - you are allowed to offset the mortgage interest, letting agent fees, maintenance and repair costs, insurance etc against the rental income for tax purposes.Jesus.
https://www.gov.uk/renting-out-a-property/paying-t...
I doubt any BTL landlords who have a mortgage on their property don't do this - and it's all "on the financial level".....so to speak.
What you seem to be describing sounds more like evasion - not avoidance.
Rude-boy said:
Meantime back in the real World the tenant will just stay put until they have found another place or they are forced to give up possession.
Yes the strict legal position is much harsher but we are talking reality and people will play the system to the very limit if they can.
In the real world you'd have to literally stay put and not go out.Yes the strict legal position is much harsher but we are talking reality and people will play the system to the very limit if they can.
It happened by mistake to a house in our village - they came home from work to find all their stuff in the garden and the locks changed.
98elise said:
Food is a basic human need, but do you feels its wrong for a private individual to take a business loan, buy a butchers shop, and make money from selling a basic human need?
Houses have been commodities for centuries, its only the late 20th century thats seen boom in private ownership.
The food the butcher's shops buys most likely wouldn't exist if there wasn't a butcher's shop to buy it.Houses have been commodities for centuries, its only the late 20th century thats seen boom in private ownership.
The house would still bloody exist. Profiting out of a scarcity you induced is wrong, and there would be a lot less scarcity if there were fewer BTLs.
paranoid airbag said:
The food the butcher's shops buys most likely wouldn't exist if there wasn't a butcher's shop to buy it.
The house would still bloody exist. Profiting out of a scarcity you induced is wrong, and there would be a lot less scarcity if there were fewer BTLs.
The same argument could be used for houses. How many new builds went up due to demand from the BTL market. Had BTL not existed - there would be less housing stock overall due to reduced demand?The house would still bloody exist. Profiting out of a scarcity you induced is wrong, and there would be a lot less scarcity if there were fewer BTLs.
Sir Bagalot said:
rover 623gsi said:
50% of all property in London is rented.
Where did you get this stat?"The percentage of households renting increased in all English regions and in Wales in the decade to 2011. London had the highest percentage of renters, accounting for 50.4% of households in the region."
Bricks and mortar will always be a safe investment long term - people need somewhere to live. The govt. don't want house prices to fall (protecting current mortgage holders), so they won't do anything silly to kill the BTL market. They also don't want to rock the boat as BTL property owners, are generally going to be tory voters.
What they need to do is build a load more council houses, wind back the right to buy somehow, and do regular means testing of council occupants, not just a home for life. I know lots of people who have fiddled the system to get a council house (single mothers, who aren't really single etc).
Very frustrating for people trying to get on the housing ladder (like myself). Last year we spoke to a mortgage advisor, and the most we could borrow against our salaries was about 90k, which would have been a monthly repayment just under £300. Yet we are paying £800 pcm in rent (and have been for nearly 10 years), never missed a payment or got behind. But mortgage rules are tightening even more with means testing, which will only make it more difficult to borrow a decent amount.
We have 50k+ cash deposit, but still can't get a home owner mortgage. I've been told (not sure if correctly), that you need to be a homeowner to get a BTL mortgage on another property, so we can't even buy a smaller house to rent out, to help us get on the ladder.
Sorry for the slightly off topic rant.
What they need to do is build a load more council houses, wind back the right to buy somehow, and do regular means testing of council occupants, not just a home for life. I know lots of people who have fiddled the system to get a council house (single mothers, who aren't really single etc).
Very frustrating for people trying to get on the housing ladder (like myself). Last year we spoke to a mortgage advisor, and the most we could borrow against our salaries was about 90k, which would have been a monthly repayment just under £300. Yet we are paying £800 pcm in rent (and have been for nearly 10 years), never missed a payment or got behind. But mortgage rules are tightening even more with means testing, which will only make it more difficult to borrow a decent amount.
We have 50k+ cash deposit, but still can't get a home owner mortgage. I've been told (not sure if correctly), that you need to be a homeowner to get a BTL mortgage on another property, so we can't even buy a smaller house to rent out, to help us get on the ladder.
Sorry for the slightly off topic rant.
fblm said:
Landlords love it when renters want a long lease for lots of reasons, I just signed a 2 year with 5 year extension a couple of weeks ago. Another tenant stayed over 5 years. I'd be over the moon to do a 10 year or longer but most tenants have no interest.
I thought most mortgage Co's didn't like long leases (assuming of course it's mortgaged)?I have one tenant for so long I've forgotten when they moved in, but I think it was '99. Yes, I get below market rent, but then I have no voids and associated costs
mjb1 said:
We have 50k+ cash deposit, but still can't get a home owner mortgage. I've been told (not sure if correctly), that you need to be a homeowner to get a BTL mortgage on another property, so we can't even buy a smaller house to rent out, to help us get on the ladder.
I don't think that's true. A friend of mine recently sold his flat in London, is currently renting in London, and has just done a BTL in Clitheroe (where he's from and intends to move back to one day).Sir Bagalot said:
I thought most mortgage Co's didn't like long leases (assuming of course it's mortgaged)?
I have one tenant for so long I've forgotten when they moved in, but I think it was '99. Yes, I get below market rent, but then I have no voids and associated costs
I have a client who buys up smaller houses in town centres, does them up with all easy access bathrooms, kitchens, etc with the specific intent of letting to a Mrs Miggins (78 year old widow) who is likely to stay there until such time as she is no longer able to live on her own through death or infirmity. Only time he's ever noticed any damage of exit was when the relatives started to strip a house the day the old dear had died and decided that they would take the white goods (LL's chattels) and were found trying to remove towel heater from the bathroom....I have one tenant for so long I've forgotten when they moved in, but I think it was '99. Yes, I get below market rent, but then I have no voids and associated costs
TTwiggy said:
mjb1 said:
We have 50k+ cash deposit, but still can't get a home owner mortgage. I've been told (not sure if correctly), that you need to be a homeowner to get a BTL mortgage on another property, so we can't even buy a smaller house to rent out, to help us get on the ladder.
I don't think that's true. A friend of mine recently sold his flat in London, is currently renting in London, and has just done a BTL in Clitheroe (where he's from and intends to move back to one day).98elise said:
Mr Snap said:
fblm said:
When was this? The various mandatory deposit protection schemes in place the last 6-7 years make it a PITA for landlords to recover costs, let alone fraudulent ones and challenging deductions is free and very much weighted in the tenants favour. Secondly what references? You don't need to have references from previous landlords for anything. The law is weighted in the tenants favour and you don't need a penny to challenge your landlord, disputes are arbitrated by the deposit schemes for which the landlord pays. Jesus after many years of multiple rentals and never deducting a penny, I wanted to make a small deduction for cleaning last month and my agents advised against it just in case they challenged it despite already agreeing to pay for a bed they destroyed. Not to put too fine a point on it if it were my daughter getting fleeced multiple times I'd be thinking she's not exactly telling me the whole story!
It's happening now. My daughter suffers from a mental health disorder that means she's incredibly trusting & honest, she would be mortified if she'd actually damaged anyone's property. She's nearly 40, has a full time job and wishes to be completely independent, but she's pretty much doomed to remain in student type properties as her mental health problems aren't bad enough to put her into sheltered accommodation (I call it 'lack of care in the community').Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 23 July 05:34
What the law states and what is actually happening on the street in Brighton (where there are thousands of students fighting over limited amounts of property) are not necessarily the same thing. Agents do insist on references and deposits are regularly held back, I'm sure they might easily capitulate but that doesn't stop them trying it on.
If the agent is "holding back" the deposit then they are breaking the law, and the tenant will be in line for 3x the deposit in compensation. Deposit protection is there to protect the tenant from any dodgy goings on, and is heavily weighted towards the tenant.
Not doing things right, such as failing to send the right paperwork at the right time will see the agent/landlord fined 3x the deposit.
Snap I'm sorry to hear about your daughters situation. Get involved and help her, 98elise is right, if the agents or landlord are playing fast and loose you can have them for 3 times the deposit! The law is completely on your side.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff