Buy to Let Problems

Dirtbag

hello, long term lurker here but now I need some advice.

I live in my partners home, I sold my (unaffordable interest only mortgaged) property at the end of last year and at that time had a mortgage offer on a buy to let basis on another house. that fell through after a disastrous survey and it has taken me a further 6 months to find some where else suitable.

Today I discover that because I am no longer a UK property owner and have an income of less than the required amount, there are no lenders that would be prepared to lend to me on a buy to let basis. Nothing to do with my ability to pay (which has not changed since the previous offer), just because I no longer meet their lending criteria. I could easily borrow what I need on a residential basis. Not fair at all.

this leaves me with three options

A sit on the deposit until partner dies and I need to get myself a new home (v morbid and not an option if I have already retired and/or have no working years left to cover a mortgage)

b apply for a residential mortgage, lie about my intentions and hope the lender agrees to letting in the future or let without consent and hope they don't find out

C apply for buy to let in joint names with partner thus overcoming income and property ownership difficulties with a view to putting it into my sole name ASAP

C is my preferred option but am worried about how to protect my interests and ensure that should partner die that his nominal,half of the property does not become part of his estate. it's my deposit and I will be responsible for paying the mortgage. his name would only be on the mortgage to enable the borrowing.

Any advice welcomed, sorry it's so long

Pixie5740

Option D) Don't use the money to buy any property. Invest your money elsewhere.

Option E) Could you use your deposit money to become a joint owner with your partner of the property you currently live in?

Cornucopia

To be fair, the BTL lending criteria have slackened off a bit since the credit crunch. But if you don't qualify, you don't qualify.

It seems like you have painted yourself into a corner in your own imagination. In reality, no one's obliged to provide funds for your BTL investment, but there are plenty of other investments available. At the end of the day, it doesn't have to be property to provide long-term security.

Have you thought about buying a holiday home? This could provide you with a cheap holiday in the first year, and be ready for consent to let by the next.

Have you discussed the issues with a Mortgage Broker? Some lenders no longer have an employment/salary criteria.

mildredalien

I'm assuming you want a buy to let as an investment? Given the issues outlined above, is this really the best option? There may be other ways to invest your money that don't involve you becoming a landlord and fibbing to a mortgage lender...

I'm a bit confused about your position - are you due to retire soon? If your income doesn't cover the mortgage, how would you sustain this if you couldn't find tenants for a while?

jayson043

Why is it not fair? Why should someone have to give you a buy to let mortgage? It's the banks choice. Err so you prefer the joint names option so you get want you want but don't want your other half to have any rights to the other half? The complicated things people do!

Thrugelmir

Do you save into a pension scheme?

Why the desire to own a buy to let?

Dirtbag

Thanks for the replies so far . To clarify a bit ...

My income is more than enough to cover the mortgage, it's just that apparently according to my mortgage broker that there are no lenders that will lend to anyone under a certain income for buy to let, unless they a,ready own property irrespective as to whether it is affordable. This is today's advice.

I consider it unfair because 6 months ago I had a mortgage offer for a buy to let, the only thing that has changed in that time is that I no longer own a property. Nothing to to with my credit rating or my ability to meet the repayments and nobody at any stage suggested that already owning property was one of the lending criteria. maybe my mistake at not reading the small print.

it is so ingrained in me that property ownership is the ultimate security that I hadn't considered investing elsewhere. Food for thought thank you but at the end of the day I will still need somewhere to live.

I do not want to invest in partners property for the same reason i don't want him to have any financial claim on mine. He has many ex wives and children and I want to keep my affairs separate from his. this makes him sound like a serial father but it's not like that really. Just easier to keep things separate.

Cornucopia

I don't think you have to invest in your partner's property to get your name on the deeds. There's going to be a cost in terms of legal fees, but depending on whether he has a mortgage it could be pretty straightforward.

If you're really set on going with BTL, that's probably the easiest way to satisfy the requirements. I suppose it depends on how much persuasion it will take.

pyueck

I don't think 'unfair' is the right term. Annoying for your maybe but you are asking for a loan and it is up to them to determine if they want to give you a loan.

I agree with the other posters, don't really know why you are so in a rush to do a buy to let. Take your time, think about your options, remember you can lose money too!

The_Earl_of_Streatham

There is nothing unfair about lenders preferring people who propose to put a roof over their heads to people who want to be landlords and tap in to all the taxpayer subsidy available to them.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/feb/09/private-landlords-gain-26-7-billion-uk-taxpayer-generation-rent

Thrugelmir

Dirtbag wrote: »

I consider it unfair because 6 months ago I had a mortgage offer for a buy to let, the only thing that has changed in that time is that I no longer own a property. Nothing to to with my credit rating or my ability to meet the repayments and nobody at any stage suggested that already owning property was one of the lending criteria. maybe my mistake at not reading the small print.

There's no right to borrow money. Banks lend money on commercial terms taking into account market risk and regulatory requirements. Nothing unfair in not meeting the criteria. If anything criteria is set higher with the purpose of reducing applications down to the higher quality applicants. As money is finite. It doesn't grow on trees.