Banks Stoke Btl Fire

[SCUMBAG]

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1717507,00.html

How can this be happening? Have the banks given up on First Time Buyers and decided that only investors are allowed to enter the market now? If this happens and FTBs are locked out of the market permanently, who will be there in the future to buy the properties further up the chain? Are the banks realising that the market has peaked and are trying to keep the market going? Are they trying to delay the inevitable even further? I thought banks were loosing money by lending through bad debts? Does this action not totally contradict what was written in this reprt

http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.j.../24/ixcoms.html

This doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

[SarahBell]

Is there any more benefit in a BTL defaulting (Other assest to reclainm aginst?) than a FTB?

Edited February 26, 2006 by SarahBell

[Red Baron]

Lenders have turned to BTL lending to maintain market share lost by the absence of the FTB.

Secondly, BTL lending is more secure than FTB lending because the amateur BTLs will, in most cases, have a prime residence that the lender could fall back on in the event of default. Thirdly, repossession of a BTL property will not create the bad publicity for the lender that would ensue if it were an FTB property. There will be little sympathy for a BTL landlord who loses his shirt.

To my mind the fact that lenders are reduced to shoving a wall of money at the BTL brigade sends a powerful message about the underlying state of the OO property market - it's coming to a grinding halt.

[BillyShears]

Edit: Removed as I found I had just repeated what had already been said.

Billy Shears

Edited February 26, 2006 by BillyShears

[Guest The_Oldie]

Lenders have turned to BTL lending to maintain market share lost by the absence of the FTB.

Secondly, BTL lending is more secure than FTB lending because the amateur BTLs will, in most cases, have a prime residence that the lender could fall back on in the event of default. Thirdly, repossession of a BTL property will not create the bad publicity for the lender that would ensue if it were an FTB property. There will be little sympathy for a BTL landlord who loses his shirt.

To my mind the fact that lenders are reduced to shoving a wall of money at the BTL brigade sends a powerful message about the underlying state of the OO property market - it's coming to a grinding halt.

Excellent points .

The Government will also be keen not to get bad press when the excrement hits the ventilation device. If people lose their primary residence due to cross debentures against a BTL property, it will be put down to greed.

[SCUMBAG]

Lenders have turned to BTL lending to maintain market share lost by the absence of the FTB.

Secondly, BTL lending is more secure than FTB lending because the amateur BTLs will, in most cases, have a prime residence that the lender could fall back on in the event of default. Thirdly, repossession of a BTL property will not create the bad publicity for the lender that would ensue if it were an FTB property. There will be little sympathy for a BTL landlord who loses his shirt.

To my mind the fact that lenders are reduced to shoving a wall of money at the BTL brigade sends a powerful message about the underlying state of the OO property market - it's coming to a grinding halt.

That all seems sensible. It still seems to be that they are only making the situation worse though. I just moved into a BTL place. The landlord is a really nice bloke but seems to have no idea what he is doing. That's odd because he set up and runs his own successful business which is well known throughout Wiltshire. Well it seems to be on the surface anyway. Firstly he has no idea what an inventory is. So he hasn't done one. I don't mind, works in my favour. Secondly he intended to rent the property without a phone line as he assumed people didn't use them any more and everyone used mobiles (conjures up the image of a Loadsamoney landlord in the 80's with a huge Delboy style mobile phone). Not only that but he actually went to the trouble of taking the thing out. So I had to shell out to have the thing put back in again. He was a little miffed at that. Then he installed a new washing machine. He neglected to take the transit bolts out of it so the first time I used it it went ballistic and smashed all the new kitchen units around it. God knows what it's done to the washing machine.

The best thing though is his attitude. When I met him he came out with all the clichés. Having been well read on this site I had to bite my lip. I didn't want him to change his mind and sell up leaving me looking for somewhere else to live! He said he had bought the place as an investment, that it was his pension and that he was subsidising the mortgage. Didn't ask if it was interest only. He said that as long as banks were willing to lend the money he was going to borrow it. He said he had gone over budget because he bought it a year ago and had loads of extra work to do to it because of new noise regulations (it's a house converted into 2 flats). He said his next venture was going to be to buy an office block. I REALLY had to bite my tongue from saying 'will you be letting that without phone lines too?’

Edited February 26, 2006 by SCUMBAG