what constitutes a BTL'er??

Z1ppy_2

There appears to be a general feeling that BTL'ers are bad here. i dont want to get into the rights and wrongs but.

what constitutes one??

My partner and i bought our first house and lived in it for 12 months. We wanted to move to a larger place but if we waited to sell, we might have lost the house we wanted.

So we bought the second house and are renting our first house.

We are investing in our second house to make it our home and attempting to add value in a difficult market.(conservatory, new kitchen, bathrooms and redecorate) current LTV is approx 85% not withstanding the below comments

Our first house is almost certianly in negative equity now however we have set aside an amount of money (approx 33% of currenet market value) should the need arise to sell the first house allowing us to bring back into positive equity. (Obviously this money is against our home mortgage thus reducing our term and saving interest payments).

We have permission to let from our lender and have no intention of buying more property (2 is more than enough headaches for me!)

so... should all the negative comments about BTL'ers apply to me and do i need to develop some thicker skin?

Pobby

I suppose yes, but it seems that you had out grown your previous house and needed to move. I guess there are many that are finding themselves unwilling land lords. This is another way that the market is playing out just now. I certainly wouldn`t want to take a huge hit if my place was in negative equity and possibly be inclined to do what you are doing. Not that I would feel overly comfortable with it.

Z1ppy_2

well i am off to get some think skin then!!

whilst we may be stretched, i dont think are not being reckless with our borrowing and using value of one property to buy the next.

we are still making maximium monthly overpayments on our home and believe it or not, do actually care that our tennant is happy in the first house, it is afterall our house!!

just interested to see if there are degrees of BTL'ers!

System

I'm afraid this makes you "vile scum" to the people without their own place.

Pobby

No you don`t need thick skin, lol. You seem to have it all well sussed out to me.

lonestar1

Your not a BTL'er in my eyes

Had you bought your second house just to let it out then you would have bought a property just so you could let it (Hence Buy to let). Thats not what youve done though youve bought a property to live in and are renting out your older one until you can afford to sell

ad44downey

Z1ppy wrote: »

There appears to be a general feeling that BTL'ers are bad here. i dont want to get into the rights and wrongs but.

what constitutes one??

?

Sleazy, tight-fisted types who couldn't give a monkeys what adverse effect their greed has upon society.

Arcaine

ad44downey wrote: »

Sleazy, tight-fisted types who couldn't give a monkeys what adverse effect their greed has upon society.

Don't hold back now, say what you really think. . I have had some great rentals over the years, why is it us Brits are so hung up on owning our own house (but just one mind, don't have two, they will be out to get you otherwise).

JayScottGreenspan

For me, a person's intentions count for a lot. Being a nice, socially-minded person puts you head-and-shoulders behind the greed-is-good/me-me-me brigade.

To be fair, they are not solely a BTL phenomenon. You'll always find people investing in arms companies, selling snake oil, MPs conning the taxpayer, etc...

Most BTLers who bought when houses were above 'fair value' contributed to the harm done to the economy and others lives. However, some were unaware of the damage they were doing, some weren't. Some were greedier than others. Some took glee in the harm done to young people - for some this made their profit even sweeter. Some bought low and sold high - doing their little bit to push the market infinitesimally back towards sanity. There's a wide spectrum.

shuze

Z1ppy wrote: »

There appears to be a general feeling that BTL'ers are bad here. i dont want to get into the rights and wrongs but.

what constitutes one??

My partner and i bought our first house and lived in it for 12 months. We wanted to move to a larger place but if we waited to sell, we might have lost the house we wanted.

So we bought the second house and are renting our first house.

We are investing in our second house to make it our home and attempting to add value in a difficult market.(conservatory, new kitchen, bathrooms and redecorate) current LTV is approx 85% not withstanding the below comments

Our first house is almost certianly in negative equity now however we have set aside an amount of money (approx 33% of currenet market value) should the need arise to sell the first house allowing us to bring back into positive equity. (Obviously this money is against our home mortgage thus reducing our term and saving interest payments).

We have permission to let from our lender and have no intention of buying more property (2 is more than enough headaches for me!)

so... should all the negative comments about BTL'ers apply to me and do i need to develop some thicker skin?

Doesn't that make you a LTB-er, like me?

I can't see anything wrong with what you've done, good luck to you!

Mind you, I can't get very worked up about BTL-ers either: IMO it is the (tax) system that needs changing; people are just people and will do the best for themselves mostly. I'd prefer it if everyone cared about society, but sadly they never will.

Z1ppy_2

This wansnt ment to be another vehicle for people to slate BTL'ers but does show that some people are labelled so when their circumstances may be very different.

to Joeskeppi, i do understand your frustration and will not patronise anyone saying if you work hard you will get there and all that rubbish cos thats not what you want to hear. Just be said in my comparitivly short working life i have been very fortunate so far and rather than waste it all, we decieded to do something with it! whether it was the right thing remains to be seen but we did something!