Btl Scum Regrouping And On The Offensive. -- Merged

[hi5lo5]

Just now, hi5lo5 said:

This would send a signal that Britain is open to investors who want to live and work here, but not to absentee landlords.

That's seems direct attack on Busta. Does the author reads this forum?

[spyguy]

2 minutes ago, hi5lo5 said:

That's seems direct attack on Busta. Does the author reads this forum?

Nah. That would be a life sentence for being a short ar5ed turkey plucker.

[mrtickle]

Excellent post Venger, I enjoyed reading it all and reminiscing

I remember some stuff about her picture with the dog in the background

If the same Conservative Home website is now publishing the article that hi5lo5 linked to, that is a wonderful thing!

 

[Venger]

8 hours ago, Lavalas said:

There was a little flurry of articles by Bosher but they seem to have stopped since it was pointed out that she isn’t really a Conservative, she just wants to lobby on S24 by any means...

https://m.facebook.com/groups/371572042862286?view=permalink&id=169264136408867

Linky isn't working for me, but that was always my view too, from the reading of so many a post - not going to put HPCers through all that again by trying to search them out for posting here.

There was post after post, then many other BTLers all looking to apply tactical pressure on MPs to try and get them to raise a fuss over S24.  All that matters/mattered to them. 

Then there was all the positioning about joining Conservative Party to try and have influence on leadership vote ('not going to add to Conservative coffers' unless can be sure to have vote for that).

The Conservative One...

https://www.property118.com/general-election-8th-may-earth-landlords-vote/#comments

After S24 there were quite a few BTLer posts claiming they never took an interest in politics (inc Bosher), but that they were really get involved because of S24. 

On 19/03/2016 at 7:55 PM, Neverwhere said:

I think where I've posted on it previously it was probably to outline the fundamental hubris: not only in the belief that they can significantly affect politics now, having no grounding in it, but in the misplaced notion that they could ignore it in the first place.

They've been messing around with the fundamental living conditions and quality of life of an entire generation, and doing so via interest-only lending that has recently contributed to the biggest financial crisis in living memory, and yet they've apparently assumed that they could be so relaxed about the political risk that they needn't even cultivate an interest?

Pure ego. They advertise their arrogance and conceit as if it is some kind of defense for their actions, rather than that which is rendering them foolhardy and obtuse.

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

Mark Alexander 20/07/2015 at 23:28

Reply to the comment left by “steve sanders” at “20/07/2015 – 22:49“:

You might be right, I’m sure he would rather have 1,000 well funded corporate landlords that he could regulate than two million people he cannot control.

However, two million voting landlords and their five million tenants is a huge chunk of the population for one man to dictate to in terms of livlihoods and their homes.

Corporate landlords will be even tougher on tenants than housing associations and mortgage lenders in my opinion. They will cherry pick the best tenants and the housing crisis and homelessness crisis will intensify, especially for those for whom home ownership is not a conceivable option due to finances or work mobility.

 

 

Then post after post from BTLers with a view that tenants exist to protect their landlords interests.   Hiding behind tenants like some sort of human shield with shrill 'rent-rise' claims - and tenants know all about S21s anyway (landlords/BTLers put themselves in position to do that to other people),  and the BTLers were always at some point, going to evict tenants (most likely).

Quote

Nevewhere:  Bloody hell they just do not get it do they? Tenants and landlords are not a voting block, they have opposing interests.

 

[Lavalas]

9 hours ago, jiltedjen said:

cant get the link to work on computer or phone, but it sounds like a laugh, can you give me the run-down?

 

21 minutes ago, Venger said:

Linky isn't working for me, but that was always my view too, from the reading of so many a post

Apologies, try this...

https://m.facebook.com/groups/371572042862286?view=permalink&id=1692641364088674

 

[Venger]

23 minutes ago, Lavalas said:

Apologies, try this...

https://m.facebook.com/groups/371572042862286?view=permalink&id=1692641364088674

Thanks Lavalas.

She made some good points in there (downsizing), presumably to appear reasonable, but the majority of the push was the agenda of HMO/Landlord VI-ism, of course.

Quote

 

-Incentives for landlords who provide affordable, quality Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs)  – greatly maximising use of current stock – enabling young people especially to live more cheaply than if they rented a whole house; a deposit can then be saved more easily.

-The outlawing of council tax re-banding of HMOs which leads to charging per room as well as unnecessary licensing schemes; these put upward pressure on rents.

-The reintroduction of taper relief on capital gains tax (CGT) (abolished in 2008) for landlords who sell properties to owner occupiers (waiving and tapering CGT is common in other countries). If landlords were not penalised with huge CGT bills, this could greatly further the Government’s quest to increase the number of owner-occupiers in general. It is incredible that a Conservative Government seeking to increase the number of owner-occupiers hasn’t already implemented this.

-The immediate reversal of the punitive taxes, notably ‘Section 24,’ against landlords, which are forcing rents up and impacting negatively on young people’s ability to save a deposit, as well as exacerbating homelessness. The two largest landlord bodies are calling for the Chancellor to reverse Section 24 in the Autumn Budget.

-The demonstration through financial education and advertising initiatives that affordability is currently good, with house prices low in most areas, meaning large deposits aren’t always needed.  Mortgage rates are also at an all-time low. First time buyers need to be given the confidence to know that they can buy.  Indeed, the number of first time buyers has been rising consistently for the last decade.

-Unnecessary regulations which prevent people from getting a mortgage when they can clearly afford it should also be scrapped where possible.

 

Quote

Government thinking out of the box; for example, enlisting the aid of high-profile people such as Martin Lewis, who is committed to improving financial education, to get young people to make the right choices in budgeting (so if one has an expensive wedding, that’s a choice one has made; instead of using the money for a deposit).

Someone has been getting an education alright - that they are not the only power that matters - and a financial education too, in that you do outbid others even when going into empty estate agents, and no other viewers in the mix when you make your offer to buy yet another house.   CGT.   Also these are choices YOU made (buying house after house, MEW MEW moar - with all the lecturing younger people that they should put it all into property to pay top-whack prices.   My view is cheaper prices/less debt = good vs long-wave/heck even surge of last few years, HPI+++++ extreme prices in many areas.

Quote

Deltic22 · 4 weeks ago
A landlord should surely pay no more than 45%, right? How is that unfair? What's unfair is 90%, 100% or even infinite tax rates as you now get taxed on a loss. That is most definitely not fair, nor is it a 'reduction'!

Some landlords not that affected by S24 for they own outright - although they may find prices drop if other BTLers have to sell for lower prices on the margin.  It's your own debt, and as I recall HM Treasury/HMRC saying, the position of each individual is unique.   Your debt profile is your debt profile.  If you've bought up loads of houses via BTL/MEW to rent out, it's all on you.  Other people exist, in a housing supply and affordability crisis.   Welcome to the real world.

Would-be FTBs who have seen BTLers buy house-after-house at crazy high prices.  That's unfair.  BTLers creating the rental demand they pretend to service.

Quote

 

DeL:  She has now taken to writing articles on conhome pushing landlordism such as the one above, which is a landlords wish list for printing (stealing) money (from the young). 

God only knows why conhome has given her a platform to do so.

 

My guess is she showed her qualifications on other matters with a view to do some topical stories, and when you claim yourself to be Conservative..... then other people don't always doubt honesty if other person claims to have values that advance main themes of a party.   As Jon Snow said;  "I'm not going to swear an oath I can't uphold.  When enough people make false promises, words stop meaning anything.  Then there are no more answers only better and better lies."

Quote

Beck is a doctor of Criminology and a Conservative Party member in South Wales.

 

[SOLZHENITSYN]

Almost too good to be true, read and enjoy. Could develop into an entertaining thread....

https://www.propertytribes.com/buy-let-interest-only-we-were-mis-sold-t-127631755.html

 

[Venger]

Quote

 

I currently have 42 properties. I have been a landlord for 15 years. Some of these properties are on interest only mortgages, Now because of negative equity and constantly forced government reforms from licesing to compliance, benefit changes, lack of local council investment making some of these areas more deprived. The  rise in the claim culture, drugs and antisocial behaviour, make these investments un-desrable.

 If I knew then that this would be a lifetime job, filled with misery and stress and of which I would have no control, with these type of mortgages we would be stuck with them as things would change and trap us, I wouldn't have taken them on.

Is there a movement on this anywhere? 

 

My view is there is a link between the two, caused by all those who thought only about self-to-extremes.

She was never doing it for a societal good.  "All about me."

Yes; HPC her out of it.   Lower rents/better landlords + rise in HOMEOWNERSHIP and people getting a stake in society.

..will follow up on rest of 'plight' thread later.  42 properties indeed, playing a victim.

If I had known I might lose at some point I wouldn't have taken on so many mortgages?  Deal with it.  You can't have it both ways.  A lifetime at it.  42.   Moar and moar.  

Quote

 

Church:And not just a little involved, how involved?

Caboose:Very, very involved.

[iamnumerate]

9 minutes ago, Venger said:

My view is there is a link between the two, caused by all those who thought only about self-to-extremes.

She was never doing it for a societal good.  "All about me."

Yes; HPC her out of it.   Lower rents/better landlords + rise in HOMEOWNERSHIP and people getting a stake in society.

..will follow up on rest of 'plight' thread later.  42 properties indeed, playing a victim.

If I had known I might lose at some point I wouldn't have taken on so many mortgages?  Deal with it.  You can't have it both ways.  A lifetime at it.  42.   Moar and moar.  

 

You missed this  amazing bit

Quote

my sister has been paying her interest only mortgage for 25 years and now it's time to pay it off, they can't and with negative equity etc they will have to try and get a council flat and go bankrupt.

In 25 years did she never think "How am I going to pay it off?".  Also how does someone who bought in 92 have negative equity??

[Freki]

35 minutes ago, SOLZHENITSYN said:

Almost too good to be true, read and enjoy. Could develop into an entertaining thread....

https://www.propertytribes.com/buy-let-interest-only-we-were-mis-sold-t-127631755.html

 

Well thank you! Very entertaining! It would fit more on the other party thread of BTL going bust

[rantnrave]

35 minutes ago, SOLZHENITSYN said:

Almost too good to be true, read and enjoy. Could develop into an entertaining thread....

https://www.propertytribes.com/buy-let-interest-only-we-were-mis-sold-t-127631755.html

 

From the link:

Watch out for our exclusive interview with Iain Duncan Smith!

Property Tribes secured an exclusive interview with IDS today at the Landlord Investment Show at Olympia.

It should be posted tonight, so watch this space!

Can't wait...

[Venger]

Although it's their 1st post.   The entitlement and positioning within it reads like it may be a wind-up, especially their view about IO mortgage compensation for their own 42 property actions. 

An innovator indeed.

Although at the same time I've read same entitlement from so many other BTLers with multiple properties also thinking they are 'the gift' to society, providing homes.  

Quote

Could we get some compensation for them selling us something, that is really entrapment. Once they have you in, because of the lack of control we have on our own destiny, in this ever changing pool of ....... there is no way out.

42 properties... 15 years... entrapment?

Probably easy money for IDS - assuming he's getting appearance fees.

He's really come out for the BTLers this year.

On 22/07/2017 at 10:06 AM, Lavalas said:

Rehash of the story in Thisismoney...

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/buytolet/article-4714232/Iain-Duncan-Smith-backs-landlords-calls-tax-review.html#article-4714232

I saw it posted on a Landlords forum so the comments are all buy to letters so far. There's even someone called 'Welsh Dragon' moaning about Shelter 

 

On 19/07/2017 at 9:46 AM, Lepista said:

Not me, but IDS

 

http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2017/07/iain-duncan-smith-the-housing-crisis-demands-a-revolutionary-new-approach.html?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Tuesday 18th July 2017&utm_content=Tuesday 18th July 2017 CID_1645b1a0ae5152c42df413bc87ab49d5&utm_source=Daily Email&utm_term=The housing crisis demands a revolutionary new approach 

Quote

 

It is also time for us to reconsider the way we treat private landlords who buy houses to rent. A large number of them are talking about no longer buying to let, and they blame it on George Osborne’s decision to impose a stamp duty levy on the purchase of homes to rent, to restrict mortgage interest relief to the basic rate of income tax, and to tax a landlord’s turnover rather than profits. This, they believe, has led to private landlords scaling back their operations or even leaving the sector altogether. We should all be concerned about this, because private landlords are a significant provider of the additional housing we need. We won’t be able to provide all the housing in the medium term through aggressive building programmes alone. We will need other sources of accommodation, as well.

That’s why we should be encouraging them with devices such as VAT relief on conversions or even capital allowances, not punishing them. It’s no wonder buy-to-let purchases have fallen dramatically. Despite what has been said and written, they’re not enormous property magnates, for the most part, but often people using the market to help provide retirement income in later life or assets to pass on to their children.

 

  Be happy with just one home in a housing supply and affordability crisis, where homeownership has plunged, 1.6million BTL mortgages since 2010.

Significant taker of houses.   Without BTL the houses would have been built, but would have just had lower final prices.   All a HPIers paradise.

[spyguy]

41 minutes ago, Venger said:

Although it's their 1st post.   The entitlement and positioning within it reads like it may be a wind-up, especially their view about IO mortgage compensation for their own 42 property actions. 

An innovator indeed.

Although at the same time I've read same entitlement from so many other BTLers with multiple properties also thinking they are 'the gift' to society, providing homes.  

42 properties... 15 years... entrapment?

Probably easy money for IDS - assuming he's getting appearance fees.

He's really come out for the BTLers this year.

 

  Be happy with just one home in a housing supply and affordability crisis, where homeownership has plunged, 1.6million BTL mortgages since 2010.

Significant taker of houses.   Without BTL the houses would have been built, but would have just had lower final prices.   All a HPIers paradise.

Hold, IDS - who I think of a a tnuc , mainly because he's a moron and wasted 5 years and several billions not reforming UK welfare - is the creator of UC, the thing all the LL are up in arms at.

I guess having IDS as the LL point man/lobbyist to the world of politics works in the same way as having Kris Akabusi as their 'man in the celebosphere'

 

[tomandlu]

1 hour ago, iamnumerate said:

You missed this  amazing bit

In 25 years did she never think "How am I going to pay it off?".  Also how does someone who bought in 92 have negative equity??

I'd guess she mewed (probably on advice from the idiot sister).

[Venger]

2 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

You missed this  amazing bit

In 25 years did she never think "How am I going to pay it off?".  Also how does someone who bought in 92 have negative equity??

It sounds wind-up to me.  AlsoI'm wary of it because sometimes you only need a whiff of someone saying "Interest Only Mortgage - Missold", and it becomes a big 'victim' cause on HPC.   

"They didn't know - You don't understand that people just assume that it means it's being paid off because they are making payments- Victims - Banks Banks Banks.. make Banks pay."

If it's real, then even IO (92?), the outstanding debt is unlikely to be that much !!  And exactly - so unlikely to be in negative equity.   More likely to have packs of equity.

I'm more concerned for GenRent who are up against super-expensive house prices.  When they look upon the market/RM, they see they would need to borrow huge sums for even the most basic of places  to become 'an owner' in this market, in many areas.  And up against all BTLers who have laid claim to millions of homes/family homes.

Quote

goldbug999: ....I think its entirely reasonably that someone in the top %5 of the income bracket has aspirations beyond living in a ex mill workers 2 up 2 down slum.

 

1 hour ago, spyguy said:

Hold, IDS - who I think of a a tnuc , mainly because he's a moron and wasted 5 years and several billions not reforming UK welfare - is the creator of UC, the thing all the LL are up in arms at.

I guess having IDS as the LL point man/lobbyist to the world of politics works in the same way as having Kris Akabusi as their 'man in the celebosphere'

Yes there is that.   And yet they'll take him as a champion of BTL, or a possible hope of getting things back to their full advantage.  Can only hope he is powerless against HMRC and S24 under way.  It's not helpful though when he speaks out for the 'plucky' BTLer who is just doing it for pension/pass more onto their kids.  (Do it away from housing financialisation)

And I recall much of Kris Akabusi, including him being very active in S24 - Tenant Tax.  I think it was KA who suggested that he sees tenants as friends with all his modern clean properties - whoever it was creeped me out with his 'friend' view to feasting on the rent.    Clashed with another LL about that a while back too - that he 'gets involved in tenants lives' - a friend to them - / sometimes gives them extra 'pocket-money' (back off the rent if they're struggling.)   What a messed up situation.   I pushed back that don't want any LL involved in my life or trying to be 'my friend'.   Not doing them any favours.  Just pennies back from rentierism, where you've got many of the homes, and others forced to rent.  Just trying to justify own multi-housing rentier positions making oneself out as a do-gooder against all that.

Sometimes tenants have to be minded to put on a smile for the landlord because don't want to risk LL taking slight, because LL has powers of S21.

Quote

I might act happy when I see my landlords when I intend to stay in a place for a while but I still think they are scumbags.  I just don't want them to give me a notice and have to move at a time inconvenient to me.

Landlords only see it one way most of the time...

Quote

 

Remember, you are seeing vindication (as a landlord) of the activity through people who want may or may not want to rent.

The people you do not get to hear from are the couple who were looking to buy and possibly could have either afforded the property if they'd been notified of it instead of you, or more importantly if the price had been reduced 20% because no other buyer (no BTL buyer) could be found. These people have, by definition, been outbid.

 

 

Quote

 

Neverwhere:  "Those renting privately (77 per cent) are more likely to show a preference for buying compared with those who are renting from a housing assocation (61 per cent) or a local authority (58 per cent). Nevertheless, for all three ‘renter’ groups the majority would prefer to buy rather than rent." - DCLG, Public attitudes to housing in England

I have far more respect for those landlords who admit that - during a homeownership crisis for younger generations - they are not engaging in a public service by monopolising housing that would continue to exist and provide homes without them owning it,  and are in fact acting solely in their own financial interests, including in seeking the economic benefits that come from retaining good tenants who don't cost them voids and arrears, and to the total exclusion of their anti social impact on wider society.

Also loving the whole but I'm a left wing neo-feudalist schtick, as if making the people you exploit marginally more comfortable so that they're less inclined to seek to overthrow your exploitation of them is anything other than a self-serving move. Pity that BTLers couldn't quite get their greed in check to actively fight for such reforms when they thought they might have a minor impact on their profit margins, but are all for going out of their way to publicly advocate for them now that their lack has resulted in political action which they think will cost them even more.

The really sneaky thing is that what he is actually asking for is the opportunity to retain the current size of his tax advantage over tenants, who as first time buyers would get no income tax relief whatsoever on mortgage debt and so are actively discriminated against by both the current tax system and the post-section 24 tax system in favour of landlords, so that he can continue to force people to rent against their will - with all of the damage to their quality of life which that results in - in exchange for a scrap of extra security that he is already at liberty to provide them with but actively chooses to deny them.  When somebody is acting in bad faith look to the detail of their suggestions. They are unlikely to be in your best interests.

 

 

 @stuckin2up2down - absolutely brilliant rework of the original video.  So tuned in.  

 

On 26/05/2016 at 9:00 PM, Oliver Sutton said:

"I think it's the tenants that are going to have to suffer".

Spoken like the true christian he is.

On 26/05/2016 at 8:53 PM, oracle said:

what a bloody stupid question.

OF COURSE they understand the needs of tenants.

in fact, they want as many tennants as possible., they just want a few people owning everything, while everybody else has to rent.

just like the old days of feudal dukedom/serfdom.

On 26/05/2016 at 8:28 PM, Beary McBearface said:

That's a great find. The cretins are beyond parody really. Leveraging into the HMO game, then dressing up for a black tie dinner and being filmed explaining how they reckon they can stick the tax changes on their tenants. Outstanding work from the leveraged landlords.

 

[Houdini]

3 hours ago, rantnrave said:

From the link:

Watch out for our exclusive interview with Iain Duncan Smith!

Property Tribes secured an exclusive interview with IDS today at the Landlord Investment Show at Olympia.

It should be posted tonight, so watch this space!

Can't wait...

For even more popcorn read dislexic_landlord's post where he claims a no win no fee solicator is looking at interest only loan misselling.

[tomandlu]

On 11/5/2017 at 10:06 AM, Ah-so said:

Busta has popped up with yet another thread on how you can avoid CGT and stamp duty as long as you go through him and Cotswold Solicitors. 

https://www.property118.com/interaction-ramsay-partnership-act-1890-schedule-15-fa2003-landlord-incorporation/

"They were able to transfer their properties to a Limited Company without paying CGT or Stamp Duty"

And you don't have to tell the mortgage lender either using a declaration of beneficial trust! 

He's completely solved all the problems that the taxman has come up with.  HMRC will surely admit defeat and hang its head in shame. 

Silly fool. He's not got nearly enough money to be allowed to dodge any tax:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/08/paradise-papers-schemes-avoid-tax-uk-property-deals-chiswick-park-blackstone

[Nabby81]

How can you be mis sold an IO mortgage exactly ..by very definition  being called ''INTEREST ONLY '' tells you exactly what it is  and what you pay 

 

[spyguy]

3 minutes ago, Nabby81 said:

How can you be mis sold an IO mortgage exactly ..by very definition  being called ''INTEREST ONLY '' tells you exactly what it is  and what you pay 

 

You can't, really.

However, you can take a few 1000 of an idiot who thinks they have a court case ....

 

[Freki]

1 hour ago, Venger said:

It sounds wind-up to me.  AlsoI'm wary of it because sometimes you only need a whiff of someone saying "Interest Only Mortgage - Missold", and it becomes a big 'victim' cause on HPC.   

"They didn't know - You don't understand that people just assume that it means it's being paid off because they are making payments- Victims - Banks Banks Banks.. make Banks pay."

If it's real, then even IO (92?), the outstanding debt is unlikely to be that much !!  And exactly - so unlikely to be in negative equity.   More likely to have packs of equity.

Huh, I think I've figured it out... equity release... Looks almost criminal

[tomandlu]

7 minutes ago, Freki said:

Huh, I think I've figured it out... equity release... Looks almost criminal

That's what I thought.

[thewig]

11 minutes ago, spyguy said:

You can't, really.

However, you can take a few 1000 of an idiot who thinks they have a court case ....

 

only a DEBTjunkie could manage to pay a no win no fee lawyer for a failed case 

 

[Funn3r]

7 minutes ago, Nabby81 said:

How can you be mis sold an IO mortgage exactly ..by very definition  being called ''INTEREST ONLY '' tells you exactly what it is  and what you pay 

I'm being serious here not taking the p.

My first house (I was early 20s) contained an IO mortgage; basically the builder knew I had no money so creatively plugged together an endowment, an IO, and a top-up personal loan from the builder into a patchwork bag of credit which equalled the sale price.  I can't remember if I knew there was an "interest only" part to this bag of spanners but if I did I would have considered it yet another bit of real estate mumbo jumbo like conveyancer, land registry, covenant, which you very likely have to sign at the bottom of.  I definitely did not know the difference between a repayment and an IO mortgage. Why would I? 

[Houdini]

26 minutes ago, spyguy said:

You can't, really.

However, you can take a few 1000 of an idiot who thinks they have a court case ....

 

on a no win no fee deal?

[doahh]

11 minutes ago, Funn3r said:

 I definitely did not know the difference between a repayment and an IO mortgage. Why would I? 

I'm afraid to admit that I am in agreement. When people are young they have a complex world to unravel and learn about, the education system teaches facts but not really how to go about finding and learning new information. I had to learn what an IO mortgage was, I certainly was not taught in school. When I was looking at purchasing a property for the first time I only saw that IO was cheaper and my initial thought was "that's the one for me". It is an extra step to understand why it is cheaper. How far down a path do you go to get an understanding of a topic? Many people are desperate for a place of their own and so don't ask further questions, especially if the answer may prevent them getting what they want.