Banks shut of BTL lifesupport.

IveSeenTheLight

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

No, I think you will find I was correct

Assured Tenancy was introduced in the 1980 Housing Act.

Here is the act of parliament

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/51/pdfs/ukpga_19800051_en.pdf

The legislation was expanded and modified in the subsequent Housing Acts of 1988 and 1996.

An assured shorthold tenancy is just a type of assured tanancy.

Since 28th Feb 1997, all Assured Tenancies are shorthold by default with a few exceptions.

Your bold bit almost sums up my position perfectly.
I was very specific about the Assured Shorthold Tennncy (AST)

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/138289.pdf

What are assured and shorthold tenancies?
These are the names of the commonest forms of arrangement for the renting of houses and flats by private tenants. In their current form, they were introduced by the Housing Act 1988 but important changes were made by the Housing Act 1996 with effect from 28 February 1997.

In the legislation, the term “assured tenancy” covers both assured tenancies (sometimes called “full” or “ordinary” assured tenancies) and assured shorthold tenancies. For clarity, this leaflet will refer to assured tenancies and shorthold tenancies to highlight the important differences between the two.

An assured or shorthold tenancy is the usual form of letting if:

• you are a private tenant and your landlord is a private landlord

• the tenancy began on or after 15 January 1989

• the house or flat is let as separate accommodation and is your main home.

A tenancy will not be an assured or shorthold tenancy if:
•the tenancy began before 15 January 1989

• it is a business or holiday let

• no rent or a very low or very high rent is charged

• the landlord is a “resident landlord” (see section 1.2).

Appendix A gives a more detailed list of tenancies or agreements which cannot be assured or shorthold tenancies.
Assured and shorthold tenancies allow landlords to charge a full market rent, unlike previous forms of tenancy. Shorthold tenancies also allow landlords to let their property for a short period only and to get it back if they wish after six months.

(Below are fundamental reasons which lowered the risk for lenders to provide loans more readily)
Changes in the 1996 Act mean that:
• a new tenancy will automatically be a shorthold tenancy unless the landlord gives written notice that it will not be a shorthold tenancy

• the landlord has a right to possession if you owe at least two months’ or eight weeks’ rent (rather than three months’ or 13 weeks’ rent)

• it will be easier for the landlord to evict you if you cause a nuisance or annoyance to other local people

• if the landlord agrees a new or replacement shorthold tenancy with you, you have a right to a statement of the main details of the tenancy agreement if he or she does not provide a written agreement.

4

Under changes in the 1996 Act, if you are a new shorthold tenant, you will:
• only be able to refer your rent to a rent assessment committee during the first six months of the tenancy

• continue to have the right not to be evicted without a court order and to have the same rights as existing tenants to stay in the property.

These are the most important changes. A summary of all the changes is at Appendix B.

IveSeenTheLight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Differing opinions make markets. :beer:

Nice soundbite, here is another: -
"The Proof is in the pudding"

My pudding is tastingly esceedingly good at the moment, far better than I had anticipated

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Nice soundbite, here is another: -
"The Proof is in the pudding"

Which has the meaning of "To fully test something you need to experience it." :eek:

IveSeenTheLight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Which has the meaning of "To fully test something you need to experience it." :eek:

I am experiencing it and I can testify it's all good.

Even the government are getting their piece of the pie.
Indeed, as owner occupancy levels lower and private rental increases, the government is in line to gain more from private rentals than home ownership.
Maybe that's why they are keen to support BTL

Kennyboy66

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Why is it perverse?

It's just another form of investment.
Compare against stocks if you wish.

I previously attempted buying into stocks and got my fingers burnt.
Property investment may or may not out perform stocks, but it cerianly seems to be a far lower risk and more secure investment.

Indeed, considering stocks, how many reports are there of pensions linked to stocks that have paid out far less than expected because of stocks in the last few years?

It is peverse to compare very safe, liquid assets (such as a savings account or gilts) with a highly leveraged investment that may take many months to sell and also comes with a cost of ownership.

I wouldn't consider houses to be any different risk to a mixed share portfolio - however many BTL investors chose to increase their own risk by borrowing.
This is then inherently more risky as ultimately you can lose more than you invest (your deposit).

Of course leverage increases the returns if all goes well - afterall thats what happens, you trade increased reward for increased risk.

It would be fairly normal for an investor to have property (or land) investments to go alongside shares, gilts, cash and maybe a bit of gold. What appears to be happening is that some people are betting their whole retirement on BTL. More fool them if they are.

IveSeenTheLight

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

It is peverse to compare very safe, liquid assets (such as a savings account or gilts) with a highly leveraged investment that may take many months to sell and also comes with a cost of ownership.

I wouldn't consider houses to be any different risk to a mixed share portfolio - however many BTL investors chose to increase their own risk by borrowing.
This is then inherently more risky as ultimately you can lose more than you invest (your deposit).

Of course leverage increases the returns if all goes well - afterall thats what happens, you trade increased reward for increased risk.

It would be fairly normal for an investor to have property (or land) investments to go alongside shares, gilts, cash and maybe a bit of gold. What appears to be happening is that some people are betting their whole retirement on BTL. More fool them if they are.

A decent post and something I generally agree with.

As with any investment, you look at the market it's in and consider factors which may affect it.
At the moment, there simply doesn not appear to be sufficient properties being built for the increasing and changing demographic households we are seeing.
This simply makes the rental market increasingly stronger from when I started

I've dabbled in shares and lost out. I still have then but they are a fraction of what they were worth. Not only nominally but also in real terms

I have a pension, which I put away a decent amount into. I am scared by what I should expect from this upon retirement. There are many examples where pensions have returned far lower than expected / sold to them.

I also put money away in various schemes (ISA's, bonds, and even capitalise on my childrens tax free savings rates I can get)

It's only my opinion (and of course those that are contributing to a continuing growing property investment percentages), but property appears to show a reasonable return given the investment, time and risk associated with that investment.

Maybe the market will change in years to come. But for now, the balance for me is that it's a worthwhile investment.

Kennyboy66

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

A decent post and something I generally agree with.

As with any investment, you look at the market it's in and consider factors which may affect it.
At the moment, there simply doesn not appear to be sufficient properties being built for the increasing and changing demographic households we are seeing.
This simply makes the rental market increasingly stronger from when I started

I've dabbled in shares and lost out. I still have then but they are a fraction of what they were worth. Not only nominally but also in real terms

I have a pension, which I put away a decent amount into. I am scared by what I should expect from this upon retirement. There are many examples where pensions have returned far lower than expected / sold to them.

I also put money away in various schemes (ISA's, bonds, and even capitalise on my childrens tax free savings rates I can get)

It's only my opinion (and of course those that are contributing to a continuing growing property investment percentages), but property appears to show a reasonable return given the investment, time and risk associated with that investment.

Maybe the market will change in years to come. But for now, the balance for me is that it's a worthwhile investment.

The huge advantage of pensions are:

1) Your employer may contribute.

2) You can take 25% tax free lump sum of your pot on retirement.

3) For many higher rate tax payers, they will get tax relief at 40%, but only eventually pay basic rate tax on their retirement income (annuity or drawdown).



And thats why

Pimperne1

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

The huge advantage of pensions are:

1) Your employer may contribute.

2) You can take 25% tax free lump sum of your pot on retirement.

3) For many higher rate tax payers, they will get tax relief at 40%, but only eventually pay basic rate tax on their retirement income (annuity or drawdown).



And thats why

Yes but not as accessible as house purchase to most people I would suggest.

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Maybe that's why they are keen to support BTL

More likely that the (part) nationalised banks will have to unwind their asset books over an extended time frame.

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Nice soundbite, here is another: -
"The Proof is in the pudding"

My pudding is tastingly esceedingly good at the moment, far better than I had anticipated

Not that you have any compulsion to go on and on and on about it at the slightest provocation. :rotfl:]


Anyone else know why the forums biggest boasters seem to be the most insecure?