Buying a house but carrying on renting for a while after purchase - possible?

macaulays

Morning All, we currently live in London and are considering relocating to Edinburgh and buying. For a couple of reasons, we are thinking of trying to buy fairly imminently but potentially carry on renting in London for a period before we actually move up and in at some point next year. While this is slightly unusual, it would work well for us if possible. Now I assume the main downside to such an arrangement would be having to declare the additional rent as a monthly commitment which would lower affordability and possible borrowing? While this does drop the number by quite a bit, the reduced potential lending according to various calculators is still well above what we are hoping to spend. So, overall this looks okay to me - are there any key considerations or issues I am missing?
Any comments most appreciated!

questionss

If the Edinburgh house will be empty you will need special insurance.

If you plan to try and let out the Edinburgh house before you move up there you will need a buy to let mortgage or at the very least consent to let.

Other than that I don't see any issues, unless the market drops and that is unlikely IMO

GMS

Edinburgh isn't commutable from London so likely to fall down when the underwriters get the case.


The concern may be that you would rent out the Edinburgh property.

Senior_Paper_Monitor

Lender will ...


1) question future income (work arrangements) if you are applying for residential mortgage


2) question why you want a buy to let at other end of country if you are applying for buy to let mortgage


3) whichever you are doing the lender will be suspicious that your choice is get round regulations on the other


Provided you have logical answers prepared should be oK

macaulays

Thanks very much folks. That's really helpful. We wouldn't intend to let anything out if we did buy, but would want to use for weekends/holidays etc while we still lived in London. Insurance is a good point if not occupied full time, will look into that. Is there anything I could do to allay a lender's fears that I might be illicitly 'buying to let'?

Sandy

Bluebunny

We struggled when trying to get a mortgage on a house 100 miles from our current work location - OH is in the Army and in prep for him leaving we wanted to buy close to our home town & families. We had one mortgage turned down because "the underwriter was not satisified with our intention to reside in the property" - we then went through a broker who was able to explain our situatiuon directly to their contact at another lender and got accepted - wish we saved ourselves the stress and gone through the broker in the first place!!

amnblog

macaulays wrote: »

Is there anything I could do to allay a lender's fears that I might be illicitly 'buying to let'?

Sandy

It appears you are to a Lender.

Your plan unfortunately is so out of the norm that I suspect many Lenders will assume you are buying to let.

wolfplayer

macaulays wrote: »

Thanks very much folks. That's really helpful. We wouldn't intend to let anything out if we did buy, but would want to use for weekends/holidays etc while we still lived in London. Insurance is a good point if not occupied full time, will look into that. Is there anything I could do to allay a lender's fears that I might be illicitly 'buying to let'?

Sandy

You do have the experience of letting out though... just sayin.

macaulays wrote: »

Afternoon,
Does anyone know if there are any buy to let lenders that don't require you to already be a residential home owner as part of their lending criteria? I own a property at the moment but it is let out as I live elsewhere for work just now. I would like to investigate whether it would be at all possible for me to consider looking at a second property but as I live in a rented property just now and not the one I own, this appears to be a bit of a block to eligibility. Any recommendations?

Many thanks,

Sandy

macaulays wrote: »

Afternoon All, I currently own a small flat in North Scotland that I let out (I rent privately in London) which was bought without a mortgage due to the low price. I am thinking of selling the flat to raise some cash to use as deposit to buy a bigger buy to let place for which I would need to get a BtL mortgage. I am aware that many BtL lenders do not lend to what they call 'First time buyers' - I just wondered if anyone could confirm whether a first time buyer in their eyes is someone who has never owned a property before or someone that doesn't own another property at the time of app? If the latter, I will shortly become a 'first time buyer' when the current property sells so would welcome any suggestions as to lenders anyone has come across that do not require an applicant to hold existing property at the time of application.

Many thanks in advance!

Sandy

Senior_Paper_Monitor

.... and the eagled eyed wolf has just identified why lenders think the way they do !!!!!


"I'm out" (with credit to the obvious TV programme).

macaulays

Right, not sure that is terribly helpful - yes a number of months ago I considered purchasing another property and letting out before I moved up. Now that it is so close my intention is not to bother with letting as I hope to move into the property in January. As such, my previous enquiries regarding letting are not relevant to this thread.

Senior_Paper_Monitor

But they are very relevant to how underwriter's think (and why) !!


Be prepared to present a believable argument (as I stated in #4)


.... and now "I really am out".