House on market for 18 months, how low can you offer?

Crashy_Time

40FTB2020 said:

Rightmove.co.U.K./property-for-sale/property-71271361.html
wont let me post a link but above is the url

The estate agent is going to explain the situation to the vendor. She has already moved away and the house is vacant. So I suppose on one hand she doesn’t need it to move to her new house so can let it sit around for ages as it has done but on the other hand she must be paying some costs to keep it going - insurance, maintenance, council tax utilities etc 

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-71271361.html

Yes, she will have costs, some local authorities now double council tax after a period of time on empty property, or she could have the drama of renting it out during a pandemic.

Caramac

Also a condition of insuring empty property is a weekly inspection inside and out, which can become tedious after a while especially if it isn’t particularly local.

noitsnotme

jamesanderson1980 said:

Everyone is ignoring the Elephant in the room....that being that Banks and other lenders who will NOT want to lend on properties where there is no right of possession. They certainly didn't want to prior to the introduction of Assured Shorthold Tenancies, which were brought in in order to encourage investment in the domestic rental market because of a shortage of properties available to rent. Indeed, when I considered the option of offering 5 year tenancies myself, my Bank advised that it would be in breach of their covenants and that they would not alter them to accommodate such a change. As I understand things it would appear that my Bank is not unique in this regard.

I see our resident persistent troll is back posting copy/pasted stuff from the comments section here again - https://www.landlordtoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2020/10/abolishing-section-21-means-rent-up-stock-down-more-tenant-insecurity

Crashy_Time

noitsnotme said:

jamesanderson1980 said:

Everyone is ignoring the Elephant in the room....that being that Banks and other lenders who will NOT want to lend on properties where there is no right of possession. They certainly didn't want to prior to the introduction of Assured Shorthold Tenancies, which were brought in in order to encourage investment in the domestic rental market because of a shortage of properties available to rent. Indeed, when I considered the option of offering 5 year tenancies myself, my Bank advised that it would be in breach of their covenants and that they would not alter them to accommodate such a change. As I understand things it would appear that my Bank is not unique in this regard.

I see our resident persistent troll is back posting copy/pasted stuff from the comments section here again - https://www.landlordtoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2020/10/abolishing-section-21-means-rent-up-stock-down-more-tenant-insecurity

If it has relevance to the OP`s question then what is the problem?

noitsnotme

Crashy_Time said:

noitsnotme said:

jamesanderson1980 said:

Everyone is ignoring the Elephant in the room....that being that Banks and other lenders who will NOT want to lend on properties where there is no right of possession. They certainly didn't want to prior to the introduction of Assured Shorthold Tenancies, which were brought in in order to encourage investment in the domestic rental market because of a shortage of properties available to rent. Indeed, when I considered the option of offering 5 year tenancies myself, my Bank advised that it would be in breach of their covenants and that they would not alter them to accommodate such a change. As I understand things it would appear that my Bank is not unique in this regard.

I see our resident persistent troll is back posting copy/pasted stuff from the comments section here again - https://www.landlordtoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2020/10/abolishing-section-21-means-rent-up-stock-down-more-tenant-insecurity

If it has relevance to the OP`s question then what is the problem?

Forum team obviously think it’s a problem as they’ve banned 20+ of his accounts in the last few months 🤣

Crashy_Time

noitsnotme said:

Crashy_Time said:

noitsnotme said:

jamesanderson1980 said:

Everyone is ignoring the Elephant in the room....that being that Banks and other lenders who will NOT want to lend on properties where there is no right of possession. They certainly didn't want to prior to the introduction of Assured Shorthold Tenancies, which were brought in in order to encourage investment in the domestic rental market because of a shortage of properties available to rent. Indeed, when I considered the option of offering 5 year tenancies myself, my Bank advised that it would be in breach of their covenants and that they would not alter them to accommodate such a change. As I understand things it would appear that my Bank is not unique in this regard.

I see our resident persistent troll is back posting copy/pasted stuff from the comments section here again - https://www.landlordtoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2020/10/abolishing-section-21-means-rent-up-stock-down-more-tenant-insecurity

If it has relevance to the OP`s question then what is the problem?

Forum team obviously think it’s a problem as they’ve banned 20+ of his accounts in the last few months 🤣

I commented on the content of the link though, not the poster, and I asked you about your views on the content of the link?

noitsnotme

Crashy_Time said:

noitsnotme said:

Crashy_Time said:

noitsnotme said:

jamesanderson1980 said:

Everyone is ignoring the Elephant in the room....that being that Banks and other lenders who will NOT want to lend on properties where there is no right of possession. They certainly didn't want to prior to the introduction of Assured Shorthold Tenancies, which were brought in in order to encourage investment in the domestic rental market because of a shortage of properties available to rent. Indeed, when I considered the option of offering 5 year tenancies myself, my Bank advised that it would be in breach of their covenants and that they would not alter them to accommodate such a change. As I understand things it would appear that my Bank is not unique in this regard.

I see our resident persistent troll is back posting copy/pasted stuff from the comments section here again - https://www.landlordtoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2020/10/abolishing-section-21-means-rent-up-stock-down-more-tenant-insecurity

If it has relevance to the OP`s question then what is the problem?

Forum team obviously think it’s a problem as they’ve banned 20+ of his accounts in the last few months 🤣

I commented on the content of the link though, not the poster, and I asked you about your views on the content of the link?

I didn’t read the content of the link, not interested.  I’m just pointing out the troll so others don’t waste their time responding to it 👍

40FTB2020

I don’t see what his reply had to do with my question though? There is no issue over right of possession or anything about a tenancy?!!

Crashy_Time

40FTB2020 said:

I don’t see what his reply had to do with my question though? There is no issue over right of possession or anything about a tenancy?!!

Yes, I thought that as well.

Crashy_Time

jamesanderson1980 said:

Caramac said:

Also a condition of insuring empty property is a weekly inspection inside and out, which can become tedious after a while especially if it isn’t particularly local.

Don’t you have to pay larger council tax if empty?

In some areas I think it is double.