Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Goat

  1. However this is usually because the civil servants in charge cocked up the specification for the project in the first place.
  2. Just a quick thought. Although only 6% of properties are owned as BTLs, what proportion of transactions do these represent. If BTLs are bought and sold after a relatively short time (compared to owner occupiers) then they will represent a much higher proportion of sales than the actual number of BTLs might suggest. For example, if on average they are turned over twice as often as other properties, then although only 6% will be owned as BTLs at any one time, they will represent 12% of sales.
  3. More to the point, if this is the best case scenario that the CML can think up then this is a tacit admission that they expect real falls in 2006 and beyond
  4. Well he's right, theres no tax to pay when your loosing money!
  5. I'm pretty sure that you can not be evicted during the fixed term of any tenancy regardless of the circumstances so if the place did get reposessed you can stay there until the end of the term however they are unlikely to offer you a renewal.
  6. G B has no interest in helping first time buyers; G B is only interested in helping himself. It is obvious that he is desperate to prop up house prices until he gets to move to number 10 and will use public money to do this if he has to.
  7. Maybe when he sees the size of the mortgage payments he will see sense. This sort of thing really does make me angry. Its not the BTLs who are really going to get shafted but our friends who get suckered into FTBing by the VI media reports. We try our best to talk them out of it but when you've got daily soft landing/housing market stabilises etc reports what can you do. The problem is that so many of the so called "experts" really seem to know Fxxx all about the market beyond "it went for £X 18months ago". Anybody who says different is laughed off in the media as a "doomster".
  8. I bet some of the landlords will have to sell up to meet the back duties.
  9. Speaking about good letting agents, from my limited experience there are two sorts of agency. Most agents run a letting business alongside their sales business; invariably it is the poor relation side of the business, usually run by junior staff with little real experience or understanding. Best to avoid these if possible because the management don't really give a toss about the rental side. There are a handful of rental only agencies, generally staffed by people who actually know what they are doing. If possible try to use these.
  10. Not quite but close. It is the total value of the rents payable under the agreement, not the annual rental. So for example a tenancy for £60,000 PA would attract nothing if it were for 12 months but were it for any longer then it is taxable on the excess only (not the whole amount as for transactions in land)
  11. Yes but stamp duty land tax applies from that date. The rates are calculated as a percentage of the total rents payable under the lease however if this is less than £60,000 then the rate is zero and nothing is payable.
  12. Not sure what the precise legal position is in terms of their powers but this does seem to be an area where the authorities are willing and able to act, the following link to the OFT website directs you to summaries of enforcement action taken. OFT Does anybody recognise any of the agents on the list?
  13. These agents seem to be taking the mickey with their charges and restrictive conditions, £250 is grossly excessive. I suspect that when you read through the OFT document you will find a whole load of other blatently unfair terms in your tenancy agreement. Can I suggest an anonymous complaint to trading standards. It probably won't help you but could help the next guy in line. Who knows, if enough people complain the agents might have to actually obey the law rather than their usual "take it or leave it" approach. I reported my agents last week, will keep you updated on the progress.
  14. Agreed, the only people who benefit from HPI are those on the way back down the ladder. Usually this is those just retired funding their retirement.
  15. I think they are saying that with low inflation there is no need for large increases in interest rates which could cause a crash.
  16. Try this http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/ or this: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nscl.asp?ID=8215 or best of all ONS Blue Book
  17. The 1988/89 bubble was relatively small compared to the situation today. At risk of repeating myself, the "it works out in the long term" argument does not work, here is why: If you buy today at say £100 your house is likely to be worth £70 in real terms in 3 years time. In 10 years time it may will have recovered to £100 however: If you buy in three years time for £100 then seven years later that house would be worth £143, a difference of 43%. To put it another way, if you bought a typical house for £180,000 today then you will be £75,000 worse off ten years later than if you had waited 3 years. I also note that you agree that house prices are now falling but am surprised that you think this has now stopped, once prices start falling they can go down a very long way.
  18. The idea is to live rent free and build up your capital at the rate of £10,000 per year. It falls apart if you are losing £20,000 per year on the capital value of the house. Yes the price will recover in the long term however as I demonstrated on a separate thread yesterday, this will still leave you worse off than if he had not bought. It may be the same model as you used and generally speaking it is a very good one but there is one crucial difference. You did not buy when real house prices were at an all time high and probably set for a 30% fall, he did.
  19. Actually LL is onto quite a good idea at the moment. If he rents out 3 rooms this should cover the mortgage and he can live rent free in the fourth. Do this for a couple of years, build up a healthy slice of equity and then either move out and keep it as a buy to let or get rid of the tenants and live there on your own. Of course the economics do rather fall apart if prices fall significantly.
  20. Sorry I should have mentioned that this opinion was expressed to me by a chartered accountant & chartered tax advisor. I'm not totally sure that I agree with the opinion, which is why is couched it in terms of "may" and "could be argued", you have however been warned.
  21. There is a potential problem with this option. Because the home is owned outright, any monies that are borrowed against it will be for the purpose of funding the new home and are arguably not related to the schedule A rental income. As a result, unlike buy to lets you may not be able to claim a deduction for the interest cost in calculating your taxable profit. You should also bear in mind that the house is exempt from capital gains tax provided that it is your principal private residence. If the house becomes an investment property then capital gains will be apportioned on a time basis and some of it will be taxable, the last three years of ownership will however qualify for relief regardless of residence.
  22. My limited experience is that landlords will either view the deposit as a opportunity to further enrich themselves or not. Conduct of the tenant is not usually an issue. Of course no sensible person would go out of their way to ruin the relationship with their landlord however it is all to common a complaint that landlords continue to treat property as their own, disregarding the tenants rights. It is however worth restating a point made earlier, most problems seem to occur as a result of agents rather than landlords. I suspect that agencies tend to inflate damages claims as a way of justifying their own fees. Most agents seem to have very little understanding of housing law. I currently rent through what appears to be a respectable agency and have been astonished by their ignorance, only yesterday I received a letter inviting me to enter into another 6 month tenancy which stated that if I wish to end the tenancy at the end of the fixed term, I must give 2 months written notice (see the thread that I started to learn more about this). My tenancy agreement is littered with terms that either directly contradict housing law or are otherwise considered unfair. I am just about in a position to defend myself through the courts if necessary (being a university graduate & a qualified accountant) but how are the rest of their tenants supposed to cope? Actually I consider their conduct so bad that I am actively considering complaining to trading standards in an effort to correct this. If I do I will keep everyone updated. Rant over!
  23. Fine, but the property remains the tenants home until the end of the tenancy, with only limited rights of access to the owner and even more limited rights over the state of tidyness. Whether the owner is annoyed or not, if the property is returned in the same condition they have no grounds for witholding any of the deposit.
  24. Is that in all cases or only where adequate notice has not been delivered? Also, although in theory they can, as many viewings will take place during the week then for most people it will be difficult to prevent entry.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.