monkey100

Stamp Duty

31 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Houdini said:

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...

She was buying a BTL property with a tenant in situ. From a lender's perspective this is better than a vacant property. You can see what the rent is and you know you have a paying tenant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ah-so said:

She was buying a BTL property with a tenant in situ. From a lender's perspective this is better than a vacant property. You can see what the rent is and you know you have a paying tenant. 

Is it? Every BTL mortgage I've seen requires it to be let via an Assured Shorthold Tenancies... if the landlord cannot take possession then it clearly isn't an AST.... Something doesn't add up here....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, flb said:

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 :)

How could you laugh?  She was only so nobly trying to help the less fortunate!  No thought of profit ever entered her saintly head!  

Share this post


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

How could you laugh?  She was only so nobly trying to help the less fortunate!  No thought of profit ever entered her saintly head!  

Which is fortunate as post S24 she may well not make a profit.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Houdini said:

Is it? Every BTL mortgage I've seen requires it to be let via an Assured Shorthold Tenancies... if the landlord cannot take possession then it clearly isn't an AST.... Something doesn't add up here....

You are correct.

Protected tenancies are commercial properties and relatively complex. Some cases the tenancy can pass to the tenants children etc....you buy yield not property. 

So the scenario described I would think will be an AST and maybe she could not evict pre completion (timescales) and after purchase didn't serve notice because she changed her mind.....accidentally. 

It's nonsense. If she switched to a BTL mortgage so at that point she knew....she may have known late in the process and ACCIDENTALLY not wanted to change her mind re the purchase. 

Its not worth working out the possibles...just made up language for someone who regrets a decision. 

Bit like my mate who is married and who accidentally sh4gged his neighbours wife for 6 months. He didn't realise the consequences either. Easy done apparently.😉

It's called not taking responsibility for your actions. Very much in vogue nowadays, particularly on 118. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Houdini said:

Is it? Every BTL mortgage I've seen requires it to be let via an Assured Shorthold Tenancies... if the landlord cannot take possession then it clearly isn't an AST.... Something doesn't add up here....

Good point. But sitting tenant mortgages do exist, but if she sought one, she would have known the tenant was sitting. It is possible that the type of tenancy was never disclosed to the lender, but still, such deceit would have been self-defeating. Perhaps her solicitor screwed up, but in such a case, she could have sued the solicitor.

Her original story does not stack up, but neither do the other possibilities.

Here is the original story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/buy-to-let/new-buy-to-let-tax-works-andhow-beat/

Quote

Claire Williams is one of the thousands of investors to be caught out by the new rules. Now 26, she bought a buy-to-let property in Hayes, west London, in 2014. She also bought her own home in Swanage, Dorset, at the end of last year.

Ms Williams is an “accidental landlord”: she put in an offer to buy the Hayes property before the estate agent told her it had sitting tenants who would remain in the property.

After increasing her deposit by taking a small loan from her parents, Ms Williams bought the two-bedroom house for £242,000, which she called an “absolute bargain”.

 

Edited by Ah-so

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.