Buy to let - stupid question!

Turnbull2000

Yes, it is a stupid question. Let me re-phrase it for you;

"Should I commit mortgage fraud?"

If you do go ahead, I hope Inland Revenue and the lender come down hard on you.

poppy10_2

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

Yes, it is a stupid question. Let me re-phrase it for you;

"Should I commit mortgage fraud?"

If you do go ahead, I hope Inland Revenue and the lender come down hard on you.

Exactly. Don't ask us to help you commit fraud.

Gorgeous_George

tomstickland wrote: »

This is to cover the increased risks of buy to let. So your truth economy is putting you at greater risk.

I've never fully understood the perceived increased risk.

If my own home fell by £10K I'd be £10K worse off (on paper at least).

If my BTL was sold today, it could cost me £20K in CGT. If its value falls by £10K, I'd only be £6K worse off (due to paying less CGT). Therefore, I see the risk being greater with a residential borrowing than a business borrowing.



GG

kingkano

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

I've never fully understood the perceived increased risk.

If my own home fell by £10K I'd be £10K worse off (on paper at least).

If my BTL was sold today, it could cost me £20K in CGT. If its value falls by £10K, I'd only be £6K worse off (due to paying less CGT). Therefore, I see the risk being greater with a residential borrowing than a business borrowing.



GG

Surely if its your home though, paying the mortgage is more of a priority than on a BTL. So they might repossess somewhere you dont live. Bit of a pain but not the end of the world. If they repossess your home, you and the kids out on the street, slightly different situation eh?

clutton_2

insurers take the view, whether right or wrong, that tenants, as opposed to home-owners, do not look after the property as well, and so the risk of damage, fire, vandalism, voids, is greater - but really - i think its just an excuse to screw landlords for higher premiums !

chopperleeds16

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

Yes, it is a stupid question. Let me re-phrase it for you;

"Should I commit mortgage fraud?"

If you do go ahead, I hope Inland Revenue and the lender come down hard on you.

I was merely asking a question without any intention of fraud etc. Don't appreciate posts that make me sound like I am some sort of crook. I have always done things by the book.

Turnbull2000

chopperleeds16 wrote: »

I was merely asking a question without any intention of fraud etc. Don't appreciate posts that make me sound like I am some sort of crook. I have always done things by the book.

if I get caught out what would be worse case scenario

Nothing else to add.

poppy10_2

chopperleeds16 wrote:

I was merely asking a question without any intention of fraud

Hmm... let's look back...

chopperleeds16 wrote: »

I know you are SUPPOSED to get a buy to let mortgage... But what stops me buying then renting out a month later - who knows and if I get caught out what would be worse case scenario?

:rotfl::T:A

nobblyned

chopperleeds16 wrote: »

I was merely asking a question without any intention of fraud etc. Don't appreciate posts that make me sound like I am some sort of crook. I have always done things by the book.

The scheme you are proposing is fraudulent. That's all the posters were pointing out.

Generali

chopperleeds16 wrote: »

I was merely asking a question without any intention of fraud etc. Don't appreciate posts that make me sound like I am some sort of crook. I have always done things by the book.

Your own post made it sound a lot like you want to commit fraud.

I know you are SUPPOSED to get a buy to let mortgage but know the deposit is much higher which makes this more or less an impossibilty. But what stops me buying then renting out a month later - who knows and if I get caught out what would be worse case scenario?

It's a bit rich to complain when posters then say, "You're a fraudster"!

Perhaps it's a misunderstanding and you should clarify your point but your question seems pretty cut and dried to me.