[Finance] Buy to Let Mortgages

[Uncle C]

they do, CGT applies on sale and income tax on rents. if you mean you want to apply punitative taxes, what happens to the rent market? or we could just build more house to address the core problem.

My simple aim would be for everyone speculating in the property market to pay the taxes they owe. That means declaring all rental income to HMRC and a stop to switching which allows the privileged to avoid CCT.

 

[Renegade1]

What would you be allowed to use it for? No, they wouldn't know.

Yes it's easy enough to re-mortgage (although circumstances can of course change). Just make sure you take into account any arrangement, valuation, and legal fees.

With Nationwide you can use a further advance against your main mortgage for home improvements for example.You can't use it to buy a property to let.They told me it would be fraud.I actually had one of these further advance mortgages to buy a property 10 years ago.I recently sold the property,paid off alot of the further advance to reduce the mortgage as Nationwide told me I could borrow it all back again when I wanted as the account was open.So I left around 2k on the mortgage and was making monthly payments however I made the last payment which I didn't intend(direct debit) and that mortgage was therefore closed(I'm an idiot).Whereas before they gave me the further advance to buy property,now you can't use it for that. If I re-applied and lied I could have problems further down the line although there is the argument that so long as you are making the payments they don't bother you.

The only reason I'm annoyed is that I had a low interest mortgage there.However if as I am reading here it's fairly straight forward to re-mortgage a low interest buy to let mortgage after 2 years fixed rate and get another low interest rate then no problem.If on the other hand I can avoid buy to let then even better however how can I do that?Anyone? I have alot of capital in my house so surely I can use that to borrow and avoid a buy to let?

 

[Renegade1]

My simple aim would be for everyone speculating in the property market to pay the taxes they owe. That means declaring all rental income to HMRC and a stop to switching which allows the privileged to avoid CCT.

I just paid CCT.How can you avoid it?

 

[Renegade1]

If Nationwide will not further lend to buy a property to let then surely there are other lenders who do so therefore I could switch the mortgage on my home to another provider?

 

[looney]

they do, CGT applies on sale and income tax on rents. if you mean you want to apply punitative taxes, what happens to the rent market? or we could just build more house to address the core problem.

High population density and the lack of room for new houses is the core problem, its why we are brexiting.

 

[cloud]

would they know?

It's not just the mortgage company who will want to know. Also the council (I had to declare to them as they wanted the area to stay 'residential' and not turn into B&B and short-term lets), and building & contents insurance (which I had to claim on once so they knew about the tenants) and I guess the leaseholder/freeholder if there is one. Any of these could make life difficult if anything needs remedying later on, and when you have tenants you want to get things fixed quickly, or else there's a risk they might want compensation (=reduced rent).

 

[Normski1989]

Yes, that's not what I said or what I was replying to though. I have never seen them ask for details from a lender.

I've also completed hundreds of tax returns for people with rental income and only been asked for proof of interest once, during an enquiry. HMRC couldn't care less what type of mortgage it is though.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[beorhthelm]

High population density and the lack of room for new houses is the core problem, its why we are brexiting.

depending on how its counted, we've developed less than 6% of the country. so if we expanded every urban area by 10% that would consume about 0.5-0.6% of the land. as farmland is about 40%, and would be most likely target for development, that would lead to loss of ~2.5%. i dont avocate blindly digging up fields, we should redevelop and build better in urban areas first, but this illustrates how little utilised the country really is for housing. the planning process essentially defaults to "no" with significant cost and time to gain permission. a distant family member sold off some land for redevelopment and it took near 2 years to gain planning. we've seen with the club how difficult it is, with intransigent groups blocking and delaying the process, with daft objections from bats to the "amenity" for people to walk their dogs. build more fudging houses will solve housing.

 

[Uncle C]

I just paid CCT.How can you avoid it?

Just ask a Member of Parliament.

 

[dazzer6666]

Worth a read as specifically includes remortgage of existing property

http://www.gocompare.com/mortgages/remortgaging-to-buy-a-rental-property/

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Hi all.

Looking to get a buy to let mortgage for a flat.Wondering if there are any experts here who can advise
on the best deals?
I could get a further advance on a Nationwide Mortgage at a low rate however you can't use it to buy a property
to let (would they know?)

Buy to let rates are high after the first 2 years so is it easy enough to re-mortgage after 2 years
and continue with the low rates or will I be stuck with the higher rates?

Many thanks

BTL rates aren't high after the first 2 years. You don't need to re-mortgage. Whilst you have that option, you can just take a new deal with your existing lender to follow on as the old one expires. NatWest is very keen to lend on BTL with a slick paperless application process. Pop in to your local branch and they'll bite your hand off.

 

[looney]

depending on how its counted, we've developed less than 6% of the country. so if we expanded every urban area by 10% that would consume about 0.5-0.6% of the land. as farmland is about 40%, and would be most likely target for development, that would lead to loss of ~2.5%. i dont avocate blindly digging up fields, we should redevelop and build better in urban areas first, but this illustrates how little utilised the country really is for housing. the planning process essentially defaults to "no" with significant cost and time to gain permission. a distant family member sold off some land for redevelopment and it took near 2 years to gain planning. we've seen with the club how difficult it is, with intransigent groups blocking and delaying the process, with daft objections from bats to the "amenity" for people to walk their dogs. build more fudging houses will solve housing.

Firstly your whole approach is disingenuous. Scrap planning regulations, ride roughshod over what people want. You would probably need a mandate for something on that scale. Which leads to your next to problems with the room for everyone policy. Are you ok with making the indigenous population a minority? And how would democracy work when it could destroy a function democratic system? Both of those questions are valid seeing you are arguing without any limits.

Finally you are using a leftist slight of hand stating how much land has been built on, the real issue is how much land is suitable for building? Its a lot easier to put limits on incomers and turn immigration into net emigration.

 

[Weststander]

Firstly your whole approach is disingenuous. Scrap planning regulations, ride roughshod over what people want. You would probably need a mandate for something on that scale. Which leads to your next to problems with the room for everyone policy. Are you ok with making the indigenous population a minority? And how would democracy work when it could destroy a function democratic system? Both of those questions are valid seeing you are arguing without any limits.

Finally you are using a leftist slight of hand stating how much land has been built on, the real issue is how much land is suitable for building? Its a lot easier to put limits on incomers and turn immigration into net emigration.

We have to deal with the hugely increased population and the increasing number of smaller / split families. There are huge numbers of people in their 20’s and 30’s living with their parents trying to save a deposit or they simply cannot afford rents. The greenbelts, ancient woodland and native flora/fauna must be protected.

But residents who are sitting nicely in their own homes, ALWAYS fight to the end to stop any new homes near them, often over many years, even where none of the special circumstances are present. Councillors due to votes always back them. Bringing the entire planning system to a snails pace, whilst those in need of homes continue to miss out.

Something must give and central government is making the right noises that it will be where there are nimby councils not signing off their neighbourhood plans and not meeting new dwelling planning permission targets.

 

[looney]

We have to deal with the hugely increased population and the increasing number of smaller / split families. There are huge numbers of people in their 20’s and 30’s living with their parents trying to save a deposit or they simply cannot afford rents. The greenbelts, ancient woodland and native flora/fauna must be protected.

But residents who are sitting nicely in their own homes, ALWAYS fight to the end to stop any new homes near them, often over many years, even where none of the special circumstances are present. Councillors due to votes always back them. Bringing the entire planning system to a snails pace, whilst those in need of homes continue to miss out.

Something must give and central government is making the right noises that it will be where there are nimby councils not signing off their neighbourhood plans and not meeting new dwelling planning permission targets.

I agree with you apart from. "Something must give" yes right but it will be net immigration.

 

[Weststander]

I agree with you apart from. "Something must give" yes right but it will be net immigration.

I don’t disagree with you. I spotted the immigration issue back in the 90’s when Bliar made a unpublicised unilateral decision to open our borders. But the damage is done and our population is stll increasing. The new homes are needed a.s.a.p. for everyone, whatever their background.

 

[beorhthelm]

Firstly your whole approach is disingenuous. Scrap planning regulations, ride roughshod over what people want. You would probably need a mandate for something on that scale.

people want housing and all parties said they will do something to assist homebuyers in the last election, so there is a mandate. politicans are just too scared to do the necessary and want to mess about the fringes, while others want to make it an immigration issue.

Finally you are using a leftist slight of hand stating how much land has been built on, the real issue is how much land is suitable for building?

the real issue is market economics, i'm hardly a left wing. price of basic grassland 4-10k, price of same with planning £600k to >£1m. there is massive demand and that cost of land causes high cost of housing. fact is, going back to the original point, raising taxes will not create additional housing stock. planning both brown field and greenfield is woefully inadequate to address demand, as evidenced by prices.

 

[LlcoolJ]

I've also completed hundreds of tax returns for people with rental income and only been asked for proof of interest once, during an enquiry. HMRC couldn't care less what type of mortgage it is though.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Exactly.

 

[Renegade1]

BTL rates aren't high after the first 2 years. You don't need to re-mortgage. Whilst you have that option, you can just take a new deal with your existing lender to follow on as the old one expires. NatWest is very keen to lend on BTL with a slick paperless application process. Pop in to your local branch and they'll bite your hand off.

Looking at Buy to Let mortgages on MoneySupermarket the rates treble after the first 2 years.When I say re-mortgage I mean with the same company.However is it that easy to take a new deal?There must be a cost because after the first 2 years of a very low rate surely they are not going to continue that?

I assume the other option,as my mortgage provider Nationwide will not lend for buy to let,is to transfer my house mortgage to a new provider who does? Therefore have one bigger mortgage instead of two.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

The main issue with buy to let mortgages here is the rental income stress tests especially for higher rate tax payers. It is based mainly on the rental income as to how much you can borrow, that is key

 

[Renegade1]

Anyone know of any lenders who are happy to lend money through a re-mortgage on a home to be used to buy property to rent as opposed to taking out a buy to let mortgage? With the re-mortgage more money would be borrowed than is the current mortgage amount to pay for the property to rent.