Recommended Posts

 "Miss Williams never meant to become a landlord but got caught out when she bought a house without realising it had “tenants in situ”."

 

How does one buy a house without realising that there are "tenants in situ"?

Surely your lawyer would inform you that you weren't getting vacant possession.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spent 20k and a year of her life renovating the Loughborough property and says she will lose money if she sold it. Been watching too much Homes Under the Hammer.

Own two properties and you should pay the second home surcharge stamp duty.

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don;t know what she is complaining about She is at a massive advantage having 2 houses and has no comprehension that her purchasing a house elsewhere probably outpriced a local so that she could 'invest' 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If I had known, it wouldn’t have been worth it, and I wouldn’t have gone ahead."

Neatly sums up the last decade really. Houses only ever go UP in value didn't you know that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“It is just so unfair. I bought the property before I knew this was going to happen. If I had known, it wouldn’t have been worth it, and I wouldn’t have gone ahead.”

Reminds me of that time I bought shares in Morrisons and then when Aldi and Lidl started taking market share, my shares tanked. I complained and complained because if I had known I wouldn't have gone ahead, but it's so unfair, no-one seemed to care that I had to sell my shares for less than I paid for them. So I know exactly how Sophie feels. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awwww. God I'm tired of these sob stories. Nobody cares. Sell it then buy your own house and don't pay the additional tax. The tax is there to discourage your behaviour for a good reason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

“It is just so unfair. I bought the property before I knew this was going to happen. If I had known, it wouldn’t have been worth it, and I wouldn’t have gone ahead.”

Reminds me of that time I bought shares in Morrisons and then when Aldi and Lidl started taking market share, my shares tanked. I complained and complained because if I had known I wouldn't have gone ahead, but it's so unfair, no-one seemed to care that I had to sell my shares for less than I paid for them. So I know exactly how Sophie feels. 

That's awful. I feel so bad for you. You really should have commissioned a national newspaper to cover the story. That's where you went wrong 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh. Guess she doesn't know how to avoid it. Noob. That's the first thing my solicitor told me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by flb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boo hoo.. my heart bleeds :rolleyes:

"Miss Fernandez" could quite easily avoid this massive stamp duty on her second house by selling the BTL property, however she refuses to do this.

She gambled on the property market and didn't make the mad gainz she expected, at least she had some choice in the matter unlike the tens of thousands of other would-be FTBs who have helplessly seen themselves steadly priced out of the market by people buying multiple properties to rent out. 

Just like her I didn't expect to grow up into a world where the puchase of the basic human prequisite of shelter my modestly-paid parents took for granted in their early lives would be all but unattainable for me.. However, envoking the spirit of Venger she was free to make her own informed decisions (potentially at the cost of others in her position) and it didn't pan out.

It's unfortunate for her but I have less sympathy for her than I do for all the other potential FTBs who didn't even have an opportunity to try and hedge their increasingly pitiful deposits against rampant HPI.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Astonishing how people who'd presumably call themselves intelligent had no idea.  God knows there was enough about SD changes in the media at the time. 

Maybe they only read the sports pages or Hello!  

Has nobody still told her that if she were to sell her BTL within a certain time (18 months?) she could claim the SD back.  

Edited by Mrs Bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mrs Bear said:

Astonishing how people who'd presumably call themselves intelligent had no idea.  God knows there was enough about SD changes in the media at the time. 

Maybe they only read the sports pages or Hello!  

Has nobody still told her that if she were to sell her BTL within a certain time (18 months?) she could claim the SD back.  

It's probably just the Telegraph propaganda, they're heavily biased towards BTL landlords (in my opinion). At one point, I read an article there where they interviewed a landlord complaining about the same thing and claiming she was doing a good thing and she's only into BTL because she wants to help people (lol) and without her, they'd have no homes (LOL). So I wouldn't bother with what they say too much, it's likely made up.

That aside, there are a number of ways to avoid paying the extra stamp duty (including the one you've mentioned, although it's not worth the hassle and the lost money), so it's a non-problem.

Found it - feel free to read it if you want a good laugh.

Mrs Haig said: “I thought I was helping people with this business, but 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/buy-to-let/our-17-propertieswill-lose-16000per-year/

I laughed my ass off. She thought she was helping people, you see :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

helping themselves more like.

i am really surprised this country has not resorted to 3rd world ways of resolving these issues with greed. 

I like to call it the robin hood method. 

Maybe Corbyn is the millennials robin hood. :lol:

C_vEatGXgAAVD4Z.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it amazing when BTL landlords go "without us, people would have no homes".

It's like, if they didn't buy those houses, the buildings would suddenly vanish or something. I'm not sure whether they're trolling or whether they really believe that they're helping people. Nobody could possibly be that stupid.

I've got nothing against BTL as a concept - quite the contrary - but I'd never claim I do it to help people :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure articles like this are published because they know how hated BTLers are. In the same way radio stations have shock jocks who wind their audiences and achieve high listening figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/07/2017 at 4:28 PM, Exiled Canadian said:

 "Miss Williams never meant to become a landlord but got caught out when she bought a house without realising it had “tenants in situ”."

 

How does one buy a house without realising that there are "tenants in situ"?

Surely your lawyer would inform you that you weren't getting vacant possession.

 

Miss Williams featured in an article in the Telegraph some months ago and I puzzled at the time. She claimed to be a FTB buyer but when she found out it was tenanted, switched to BTL. It was completely implausible, of course. 

Another poster pointed out that she probably bought a property that was cheap for the area and planned to evict the tenants as soon as possible. However, she did not realise that it was a protected tenancy and that she had no way of evicting the tenant. As a result she is stuck with a BTL property that she probably over-paid for. 

A mixture of greed and naivety. 

Edited by Ah-so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ah-so said:

Miss Williams featured in an article in the Telegraph some months ago and I puzzled at the time. She claimed to be a FTB buyer but when she found out it was tenanted, switched to BTL. It was completely implausible, of course. 

Another poster pointed out that she probably bought a property that was cheap for the area and planned to evict the tenants as soon as possible. However, she did not realise that it was a protected tenancy and that she had no way of evicting the tenant. As a result she is stuck with a BTL property that she probably over-paid for. 

A mixture of greed and naivety. 

Seems plausible......but I still question how her lawyer didn't inform her about the status of the tenancy on the property.  Also - the switch to a BTL mortgage implies that she discovered the tenanted nature of the property before completion....why proceed if you discover you can't live in the house and you are really a FTB?

 

The whole thing makes absolutely no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blod said:

I'm sure articles like this are published because they know how hated BTLers are. In the same way radio stations have shock jocks who wind their audiences and achieve high listening figures.

Yes, you're probably right - clickbait a la Daily Mail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Exiled Canadian said:

Seems plausible......but I still question how her lawyer didn't inform her about the status of the tenancy on the property.  Also - the switch to a BTL mortgage implies that she discovered the tenanted nature of the property before completion....why proceed if you discover you can't live in the house and you are really a FTB?

 

The whole thing makes absolutely no sense.

I think the property was advertised as tenanted and she always intended to get a BTL initially. The plan would have then to evict and change to an oo mortgage. 

No doubt her solicitor sent her details that stated that she was buying a 'protected' tenancy but the penny didn't drop. And she probably didn't want to reveal her plan to her solicitor. 

Of course she cannot reveal the reality of her plan without looking evil. So she had to come up with a story to cover, but the one she came up with its pretty implausible. 

She probably over-paid  - other buyers would have valued the property on a yield basis of a protected tenancy so she cannot sell without losing money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Ah-so said:

I think the property was advertised as tenanted and she always intended to get a BTL initially. The plan would have then to evict and change to an oo mortgage. 

No doubt her solicitor sent her details that stated that she was buying a 'protected' tenancy but the penny didn't drop. And she probably didn't want to reveal her plan to her solicitor. 

Of course she cannot reveal the reality of her plan without looking evil. So she had to come up with a story to cover, but the one she came up with its pretty implausible. 

She probably over-paid  - other buyers would have valued the property on a yield basis of a protected tenancy so she cannot sell without losing money. 

My question would be how did she get a mortgage on a property which wasn't vacant at the time of possession.... That's why I don't think its on a "protected" tenancy as mortgage companies don't knowingly lend against those properties...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Final Brexit Deal   166 members have voted

    1. 1. When the government negotiations are over, do you want a vote on the final deal?


      • Yes
      • No

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic