Investors Only Marketed Properties

princeofpounds

As pointed out, it normally means the property has a tenant in it. Therefore you need to be a cash purchaser or have a BTL mortgage and be happy to be a LL, at least for a period.

AdrianC

The_Fat_el_Hombre wrote: »

I see. So if it's got a tenant in then only a cash buyer will be able to buy the place?

Not quite - you could buy it with a BtL mortgage. But if you wanted to live there yourself, then you'd need to give your new tenant all the usual legal notice etc.

Why would they get more money? I suspect there's a very obvious answer but as I am very new to this I'm afraid you might have to spell it out to me in this instance!

Simple supply and demand. There are fewer potential buyers, therefore less demand, therefore values are lower.

Can I post links (read on another thread that people can't)?

People with a low post count can't post links, to prevent people signing up and immediately spamming.

Either post the link with spaces in it, or give hints that'll help somebody find it on RM etc. Postcode, description, agent name etc.

No I don't think this one is part of an investment scheme - which is what I think I touched upon when I mentioned those with management companies already in place? Are all new build flats "investor only" marketed as yielding certain percentage returns basically investment schemes btw or might you still be able to buy one to live in?

There's going to be something iffy going on - but I don't know what a newbuild would have that'd make it investment only.

m_13

There are some mortgage companies who only mortgage on a percentage of the properties in a new build. Once they reach saturation they won't lend on any more They're reducing their exposure. Others have very strict criteria relating to commercial properties nearby.

moneyistooshorttomention

The latest place I saw marketed as "investors only" is one of those self-contained bedsits (tiny and with a bedroom that is, in effect, a bit of room space up a rather unconventional staircase and where its only possible to have a mattress and not a proper bed).

I read that as meaning "We think the place would not be sellable on afterwards because very few people would want one like it for themselves".

Mind you, having said that, I still don't know why my last next door neighbours house went up for sale marked as being for investors. It is very old-fashioned but, as far as I knew, not got any structural problems/damp/etc. So it obviously needs gutting (unless you wanted to live in a Time Warp house) and would certainly need rewiring...but I cant see why that house was marketed that way.

The_Fat_el_Hombre

Ok, so 'investor only' properties are still off limits to an FTB like myself unless I have 1. a cash deposit (highly unlikely for me) 2. For instances where there is a tenant already in the property I need a BTL mortgage which will mean a higher mortgage rate (not really interested in this) or 3. it's an investment scheme (not interested at all as I want somewhere to live in). My naive little self had wondered/hoped I might be able to get a normal mortgage even if someone was already renting in the flat and then I could just move in when they wanted to move out, I didn't realise I'd need a BTL mortgage for this so thanks for the info. Looks like the likelihoo is that there's no real way for me around the 'investor only' properties

This is the flat by the way:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-33901416.html

AdrianC

The_Fat_el_Hombre wrote: »

2. For instances where there is a tenant already in the property I need a BTL mortgage which will mean a higher mortgage rate (not really interested in this)

...and the somewhere to live for the months until the property is vacant.

This is the flat by the way:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-33901416.html

I'd be on the phone to them asking, not least because the PDF brochure does also suggest it as being suitable for FTBs.

eddddy

The_Fat_el_Hombre wrote: »

...
This is the flat by the way:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-33901416.html

I see the property description says:

Developed by Dylan Harvey...

Take a look at these links:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/dylan-harvey-residential-in-administration-926233
http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwest/news/183159-fsa-probes-dylan-harvey-land-division.html
(and google 'Dylan Harvey' for much more.)

So the flat you are looking at was probably built as part of a 'dubious' investment scheme.

I wouldn't be surprised if it had some very 'creative' terms in the lease - very biased towards the freeholder. And it's the dodgy lease that makes it unmortgageable. But a quick call to the EA might clarify the reasons.

The_Fat_el_Hombre

AdrianC wrote: »

...and the somewhere to live for the months until the property is vacant.



I'd be on the phone to them asking, not least because the PDF brochure does also suggest it as being suitable for FTBs.

Yea I'm fine with moving back to my mums for a bit if necessary (and could always rent if it's looking like it will be longer), but I doubt things will pan out for me this way to be honest

eddddy wrote: »

I see the property description says:


Take a look at these links:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/dylan-harvey-residential-in-administration-926233
http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwest/news/183159-fsa-probes-dylan-harvey-land-division.html
(and google 'Dylan Harvey' for much more.)

So the flat you are looking at was probably built as part of a 'dubious' investment scheme.

I wouldn't be surprised if it had some very 'creative' terms in the lease - very biased towards the freeholder. And it's the dodgy lease that makes it unmortgageable. But a quick call to the EA might clarify the reasons.

Christ, it doesn't half pay to make the odd thread on the right forum now and again!

As I am currently a bit of a newbie towards all this, what sort of 'creative' terms do firms usually try with things like this that I should be aware of?

Looks like Dylan Harvey covered various other places in and around Manchester though. Is there a possibility that the flats are actually ok and it was just the investment scheme that was dodgy? Obviously in the case of this flat there is still the big hanging question as to why it is investment only. As I said before I'd assumed that it was because the rental market is booming in manchester and it seems there are plenty of investors more than happy to snap places up like this and rent them out for X amount a month. I didn't think that it might be to do with being unable to get a mortgage for it