my buy-to-let dream cost me everything

Doc_N

BettiePage wrote: »

I would and I bet plenty of others would too.

Oh yes!!! Lead me to her.

RabbitMad

Melissa177 wrote: »

I have to say, the response to this woman's plight on this thread confirms my belief that this forum has more than its fair share of nutters who are obsessed by seeing people fail in the property market. I bet not one of those people who have posted nasty comments on here would dare say anything like that to her face were you to meet her in person.

I think she's been stupid and would say that to her face but wouldn't dwell on it or be nasty. I'd just advise her to go bankrupt and move on and hope she learnt her lesson.

However she obviously isn't the sharpest tool in the box so I doubt she will. 1st the target rent wouldn't even cover the IO mortgages and second she didn't even appear to do any independant research on what rent she could hope to achieve (like looking in rental agency windows).

Melissa177

I did have to laugh at my boyfriend's response when I sent him this link...

"This isn't a pyramid scheme. We employ a unique trapazoid model."

CB1979_2

just how many times have you mentioned your new fella in recent months Melissa?! lol

something tells me you have it bad!

anyway i stand by what i said, she's still an idiot, stupid people can "make" money on rising prices and it appears stupid people can lose a whole lot more! lol

she be a classic dumba$$ jock, no offence jocks, but you do have a majority of thick people up there!

Gorgeous_George

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

1n 1998 we bought a flat to rent out and use as an investment proerty - something we'd always wanted to do - on a 95% mortgage.

However - our own family home was already paid for and had no mortgage on it whatsoever.

If it didn't work out, we could always sell the property with no risk to our own home.

I think you're wrong.

If house prices had crashed by 50% and you needed to sell the BTL, you could have been forced to sell the family home to cover any shortfall.

GG

epz_2

as a glasgow lad i can tell you this woman is in more trouble than she realises still cause i know where the flats are she is talking about.

they are in shall we say dubious redeveloped areas, only problem is the stab first junkies are still around and its too far to walk back from the clubs, there are loads of them getting thrown up but there isnt any supply shortage up here except maybie the council estates getting demolished so thouse flats need to compete against some trully stunning victorian massive flats and houses.

oh and fyi in 2003 my folks neighbours sold a 5 bed detached house with massive garden in a quiet 70s stile culdisac with loads of parking and good neghborhood for £148k, that is literally 3 mins walk downhill to a train station and 12 mins to glasgow central. even if there were enough people about willing to pay the rent on a 170k place they could get a much better deal elsewhere.

seven-day-weekend

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

I think you're wrong.

If house prices had crashed by 50% and you needed to sell the BTL, you could have been forced to sell the family home to cover any shortfall.

GG

I did say later in my post that we had just assumed prices were going to rise. We hadn'r thought that they might fall and that we actually could have ended up in negative equity. I didn't think of that at the time, only realised it recently. We were lucky.

However, we could have mortgaged the family home, not sold it. It was worth more than the mortgage on the investment property, even if prices had fallen 50%.

Just glad it didn't happen.

obsessed_saver

Reminds me of all those luxury apartments in Cambridge. 1 bedroom starting at 240k, 2 bedrooms at 280k, and some apartments for 750k!! The penthouse was £1million - "The first ever in Cambridge!" said the property developer.

How many "Anne"s have signed up and bought those flats? They're renting out at about 800pcm, not sure what their occupancy is though. Looks quite empty to me.

eco-friendly_2

dannyboycey wrote: »

A lot of landlords with 'buy-to-let empires' worth millions, could be the hardest hit *if there's a crash and find themselves out on the street, owing a fortune!



*when

O danny boy..........................


Back in 1989 when we had the REAL crash the only people that benefited were Landlords , YUP ! BTLers. Around 60.000 people lost their homes, and many lost their jobs also , a lot of those repossessed properties were auctioned off at " bargain prices " ! and the crazy thing was ,some families found themselves re-housed in properties bought at auction round the corner from were they originally stayed, but now on state benefits. Appalling that the goverment allowed this to happen, but they did.


There's a lot of bitter people on this site, and most I know want the BTLers to fall on their !!!!!, and some most definitely will, like that poor woman who got sucked in to the "dream", a lot of people got in to BTL simply because they had no confidence in their pensions thanks to poor returns , in fact some people have invested in BTL to help their kids get on the property ladder in the future .


I remember 1989 well , builders were laying off people , closing down sites , furniture , carpet ,TV , shops etc,etc, were struggling terribly . Make no mistake if I drown in debt you bitter people will go down also ! back to the depths of 1989

Running_Horse

eco-friendly wrote: »

Appalling that the goverment allowed this to happen, but they did.

What should the government have done?