Consent to let & other hairy issues

Cannon_Fodder

If held for investment/pension purposes, the flat should have a product and equity level that fits the business plan, to match your investment aims. Taking equity out means directly reducing the profitability of the flat.

I think a lot of people would say its fine to have the flat as your pension, but that if it risks not paying for itself - by having so much equity taken out that the mortgage payments grow, so that the rent can barely to cover expenses - then it stops being worth the hassle element of being a landlord.

The reduction in profitability needs to be factored against the benefit of improving the LTV on the residential property. They may cancel each other out, at best. Maybe not now, but at next re-mortgage of the rental, perhaps - especially if rumoured price falls push your LTV to over 90%, or consent-to-let runs out forcing BTL - when you will need 75% LTV max.

Its about the whole picture. Which we do not have.

You had given few figures before your last post. Now there is mention of 60% LTV and £100k. But no detail of the flat value/equity. If you only give us half the story, you have to expect some guesses on what the situation is, which will be all the wilder, the greater your lack of detail.

Msmer1973

THanks but if you go back and read my original post you will see I wasn't asking for advice on whether I should keep my existing flat or sell it. I was seeking advice on how to get around the problem of my partner's income not being taken into account....

Perhaps this explains why there are "few figures" in my posts and why you feel I'm giving you "half the story" - because I'm not seeking views on them! My comment about the 60% LTV was to respond to the rather judgmental comment made by VT82 on (yet again) an issue I wasn't seeking any input on.

And just for the sake of completeness - I'm not a complete idiot. I will have 70% LTV in my existing property post-withdrawal of additional funds (I guess this is where you jump in and tell me that I can't predict what the value of my property will be in the future so how can I know I will have 70% LTV - perhaps save yourself the trouble). The 60% LTV is for the new house.

VT82

Msmer1973 wrote: »

My comment about the 60% LTV was to respond to the rather judgmental comment made by VT82 on (yet again) an issue I wasn't seeking any input on.

Just goes to show I had already answered your question in my post. I said you would be better of getting a proper buy-to-let mortgage, actually enabling this mortgage. It would also mean you would be paying the higher-rate BTL rate on a lower LTV rate and lower balance by not re-mortgaging it. I also foresaw before you said what LTV you were aiming for, that this would mean having to get a slightly more expensive mortgage on the new-place due to the LTV. It looks like you'll have to compromise on the 60% mortgage.

And whereas before I was trying to sympathise with you about them taking your husband's debt into consideration, now I'm with Thrugelmir: 'Lenders can afford to cherry pick their business. Customers aren't in a position to demand.'

Msmer1973

Ummm, perhaps you don't understand how Let to Buy works VT82 - it is effectively the same as BTL in that the new lender takes into account the rental income from the existing property. Try googling it.

I'm confused now - are you the same person as Cannon Fodder?