Ah-so Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 I have come across this property in the outer-suburbs of London. A 2-bed 1930s property, coming in at £200,000 - ideal for the FTB. Here is the basic blurb: 2 Double bedrooms Terraced House Double glazing Off street parking 60' Rear garden Popular location St Helier home Close to local amenities Easy access of public transport INVESTORS ONLY Investors only? WTF? It makes the point again later on: "THIS IS AN IDEAL INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY ". It can hardly be anything else, can it?! What chance do FTBs have? Not only are BTLs buying property from under their noses, but in this case, they do not even get the chance to buy it. I am surprised that this is even legal. I might give them a ring to find out what is going on and why it is restricted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sancho Panza Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 I have come across this property in the outer-suburbs of London. A 2-bed 1930s property, coming in at £200,000 - ideal for the FTB. Here is the basic blurb: Investors only? WTF? It makes the point again later on: "THIS IS AN IDEAL INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY ". It can hardly be anything else, can it?! What chance do FTBs have? Not only are BTLs buying property from under their noses, but in this case, they do not even get the chance to buy it. I am surprised that this is even legal. I might give them a ring to find out what is going on and why it is restricted. I'm sure they wouldn't turn down some first time buyer's,it's probably more that they normally only find people whose maths is that bad that they might buy it,in the amateur BTL category. Someone who wanders around the property,looking at the £50,000+ he's going to have to sink into it and then marvels at the value of an investment that yields 4.5% gross whilst muttering, 'I can only get three per cent at the bank'.I speak from experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2late Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 The two most common reasons for this would be an unmortgageable property or a sitting tenant. The house looks to be of standard construction and in decent condition so the first seems unlikely. It is clearly being lived in so the second seems more likely, but it is quite bizarre that the agent has neglected to include the conditions of the tenancy or yield in the description. Perhaps today's "savvy investors" do not concern themselves with such trivialities. If my assumption is correct, it actually seems quite decent of the landlord not to turf the tenant out of their home. Of course, what happens after a sale is anyone's guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CentrinoDuo Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 This usually means there's tenant in situ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venger Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Looks like a landlord trying to bail. Probably got a tenant as CD says. Could speculate a few reasons why wanting an investor, such as tenant just begun an AST? THIS PROPERTY IS OFFERED TO INVESTORS ONLY - Currently let on an Assured Short hold Tenancy. This 2 bedroom terraced house is located on the popular St Helier Estate, just off Scroll down a little on link. http://www.kenyons-e...tm?strradius=50 There's what appears to be a similar house, at quick glance, for sale on the same road, with a lower asking price, under offer. http://www.zoopla.co...etails/29562779 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venger Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 If my assumption is correct, it actually seems quite decent of the landlord not to turf the tenant out of their home. Of course, what happens after a sale is anyone's guess. Urgh. I doubt it. Some other reason for wanting to sell now, in my opinion, and unable to quickly get rid of tenant. Or wanting maximum rental income coming in till sale. I just doubt your reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 The two most common reasons for this would be an unmortgageable property or a sitting tenant. The first wouldn't prevent someone buying it to live in! If my assumption is correct, it actually seems quite decent of the landlord not to turf the tenant out of their home. Of course, what happens after a sale is anyone's guess. A protected-forever tenancy would account for a price way below the normal market for the area (is it that?). It would also suggest a tenant of a certain age. Maybe the landlord died, and someone is now making what they can of an inherited asset? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Tenant in situ and/or they want cash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 If a council sells one of their properties on the open market to somebody who's going to live in it the money goes to central government and if they sell it to a landlord they keep the money. Guess which one they prefer to do? This scenario comes up on Homes Under the Hammer occasionally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eztiger Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 This usually means there's tenant in situ. This ^ Unless the sitting tenent has one foot in the grave I very much doubt a property with a sitting tenant and a (normally) low fixed rent would be a good investment decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sancho Panza Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) The first wouldn't prevent someone buying it to live in! A protected-forever tenancy would account for a price way below the normal market for the area (is it that?). It would also suggest a tenant of a certain age. Maybe the landlord died, and someone is now making what they can of an inherited asset? I'd suspect any tenant would be on an AST. That price doesn't exactly shout cheap rent. Edited July 25, 2013 by Sancho Panza Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.