3 ms·

I think it's the other way around. Landlords know you can't buy, that you're forced to rent, so they can charge more than you would pay if you had a mortgage.

I think it's the other way around. Landlords know you can't buy, that you're forced to rent, so they can charge more than you would pay if you had a mortgage. On the subject of the landlords mortgage. There's a couple of things at play here. Most of them bought property at significantly lower prices. My previous landlord bought the property i lived in for £270k in the early naughties. It's now worth over £800k. So not only does he have more than £500k profit in the house, he gets to charge "fair" rent which is orders of magnitude greater than his mortgage payments. My landlord has 50 properties. Another trend I'm seeing is landlords with the capital buying properties with short leases. Basically, if the lease on the property is less than 70 years, you can't get a mortgage. So there are houses out there on sale for basically half their market value, that first time buyers can't get to. Despite the fact that the cost of increasing the lease is nominal when compared to the actual value of the property. Everything is stacked against the renters and first time buyers, while private landlords are afforded all kinds of opportunities.

lmm 12y ago
The GP was claiming that landlords could get mortgages when occupiers couldn't. You seem to be talking about landlords who can already afford to buy outright, who, yeah, are always going to have an advantage. > My previous landlord bought the property i lived in for £270k in the early naughties. It's now worth over £800k. So not only does he have more than £500k profit in the house, he gets to charge "fair" rent which is orders of magnitude greater than his mortgage payments. There's no double-dipping. He's made the 500k profit fairly (well, ish), he took the investment risk and could've lost money if he'd bet wrong, he now has 800k-worth, he can charge a rent that's appropriate for something that's 800k-worth just as if he'd bought it for 800k today. > Basically, if the lease on the property is less than 70 years, you can't get a mortgage. So there are houses out there on sale for basically half their market value, that first time buyers can't get to. Despite the fact that the cost of increasing the lease is nominal when compared to the actual value of the property. Sounds like a business opportunity for a bank willing to offer mortgages on those.
- Ntrails 12y ago
  Banks are limited in what they are allowed to lend to "buyers to reside". The rules change for "Buy to let" properties, since now the landlord simply has to demonstrate a business plan of being able to rent out for more than the mortgage payments (with some leeway). This resulted in people being advised (by brokers) to get the "mortgage to let" fully intending not to actually let it and live there themselves. This loophole has been closed. I don't even know if you can regulate it - but it is hugely distorting to the property market Edit: "The policy would cost £27bn, she said, which would be partly funded by removing tax relief on mortgage interest for private landlords." interesting to see the greens attacking the buy to let model, and how they're going about it.

lmm 12y ago

The GP was claiming that landlords could get mortgages when occupiers couldn't. You seem to be talking about landlords who can already afford to buy outright, who, yeah, are always going to have an advantage. > My previous landlord bought the property i lived in for £270k in the early naughties. It's now worth over £800k. So not only does he have more than £500k profit in the house, he gets to charge "fair" rent which is orders of magnitude greater than his mortgage payments. There's no double-dipping. He's made the 500k profit fairly (well, ish), he took the investment risk and could've lost money if he'd bet wrong, he now has 800k-worth, he can charge a rent that's appropriate for something that's 800k-worth just as if he'd bought it for 800k today. > Basically, if the lease on the property is less than 70 years, you can't get a mortgage. So there are houses out there on sale for basically half their market value, that first time buyers can't get to. Despite the fact that the cost of increasing the lease is nominal when compared to the actual value of the property. Sounds like a business opportunity for a bank willing to offer mortgages on those.

Ntrails 12y ago
Banks are limited in what they are allowed to lend to "buyers to reside". The rules change for "Buy to let" properties, since now the landlord simply has to demonstrate a business plan of being able to rent out for more than the mortgage payments (with some leeway). This resulted in people being advised (by brokers) to get the "mortgage to let" fully intending not to actually let it and live there themselves. This loophole has been closed. I don't even know if you can regulate it - but it is hugely distorting to the property market Edit: "The policy would cost £27bn, she said, which would be partly funded by removing tax relief on mortgage interest for private landlords." interesting to see the greens attacking the buy to let model, and how they're going about it.