You need to read this if you have a buy-to-let

[starrystarryknut]

West Brom building society has just dropped a bombshell on people with buy-to-let tracker mortgages. By finding a miniscule loophole in some wording in a booklet - not in their mortgage offer, but in a booklet - they have just DOUBLED their interest rates overnight. If you are a West Brom customer and this affects you, there is a group getting together legal action at www.property118.com. If you're not with West Brom, but you have a buy-to-let, you should have a look as well - Bank of Ireland has done the same, and it is likely that Barclays and Mortgage Express are about to do the same.

In fact, anyone with a tracker mortgage should take a look at this website and consider getting involved in the campaign - if West Brom and Bank of Ireland succeed in this, no-one's mortgage is safe. This is one of the biggest screwovers by the banks since 2008. This time let's not let them get away with it.

www.property118.com

Thanks, I will pass that information along.

Just read the article and it says if you have 3 properties or more

sorry, posted too soon. It will only affect those with 3 or more.

Perhaps this will encourage potential and multiple buy-to-letters to invest instead in more useful businesses which create employment without crippling the housing market?

Well said dialpforpizza.

thought this might turn into a bash the landlord thread.
DelGirl is that more than three BTL's or more than 3 with the same lender ?. We have more than three but only three are with one lender the others are all different lenders.

Not just affecting BTL's - we've been screwed by Bank of Ireland one. Principle is same.

I'm certainly not one to defend the banks, but I've not yet seen or heard (on this thread or anywhere else) any credible defence of buy to let in terms of impact on the housing market and the social housing crisis (other than "it's legal" or "you would if you could" - where else do we hear that as a defence?).

As someone who has not been able to get on the ladder, and doesn't really like the idea of the state taking on the risk of first time buyers that the banks turn down (instead of actually reducing the risk), this issue leaves me a bit ""meh".

Property investors have a real opportunity to turn this country around by investing in people and jobs, rather than bricks and mortar. The government should be rewarding those who do that in preference.

Just saying.

Havetowearheels - no, it's just 3 properties overall. They have done unauthorised credit checks to find how many properties people have and are laying the raised interest rate on anyone who has 3+, even if they only have 1 with West Brom.
Pootles you're right - it's the same as Bank of Ireland. People who are not with WB or BoI shouldn't be complacent. The principle is the same, and this could spread to affect others, once other banks see WB and BoI get away with it.

cheeky feckers, thanks I will pass to DH.

nope, still can't see or hear any defence.

I don't need to defend how we invest our money.

There is always one. This time its dialforpizza. Less pizzas from the take out and the house would be more affordable.

That's quite funny as ironically I hate take away pizza

Much prefer a homemade sauce that I bung all sorts of green veg in disguise for the DC, and this year's has tomatoes from the garden.

But I don't begrudge a stressed out parent a take away treat from time to time, even those working hard to save.

BTW my name is a play on the Hitchcock film, Dial M for Murder.

HaveToWearHeels no of course you don't have to justify your personal investments. What I was getting at ok in a rather goady kind of way is that there never seems to be much of bigger picture defence of BTL in terms of impact on the housing market and the social housing crisis, it just goes all mud slingy.

I would be really interested to know the proportion rental properties make up of total available housing, and the proportion of these owned by multiple BTL'ers, and a comparison with the number of social housing properties, with finally a close look also at the number of housing benefit claims of those with a private landlord. Don't you think that would be interesting?

I am not a BTL landlady - but may be in the future: thanks for highlighting this.

There are lots of posts on that site but they all seem to assume the reader knows what is going on. Is there an intro/summary?

I am not asking this in a confrontational way, I am asking seriously, what 'people and jobs' should I be investing in that can give me the same return as property?

We have worked hard to save money for our future. We have also been fortunate to inherit some money recently, which was also earned through very hard work and alot of personal sacrifice. We now want to invest that money as a future pension for ourselves, to hopefully provide some kind of additional income, and as a way of saving towards or children's education/weddings/getting on the property ladder etc.

We have been looking at buy to let properties. We would be responsible landlords in that we would maintain properties well etc. We have previously invested in stocks and shares and lost quite a bit of money in that during the banking crisis.

Buy to let will provide us with a good supplement to our income each year, and hopefully some capital gain in the much longer term. As we would be looking at it as a long term investment, property price fluctuations shouldn't affect us too much.

dialpforpizza what would you suggest instead? I can't see how the relatively small amount we have to invest would actually provide any jobs for anyone or really impact any business. But it can provide for our needs. Yes we are lucky to be in this position, and not everyone can afford to even get on the property ladder, but really and truly what are the other options?

We can afford to give more to charity and do more volunteer work if our income is subsidised in this way. That is therefore surely more beneficial to society than if we don't make our money work for us and waste it?

And don't get me started on all the people who were happy to accept 100% mortgages when they were offered them at ridiculous multiples of their salary. Yes the banks were irresponsible to offer those mortgages, but the people happily accepting them when they couldn't afford them and inflating the market are never held responsible!

Rant over.

Oh and thanks for the tip off OP.

..what 'people and jobs' should I be investing in that can give me the same return as property?

Well this is the crux of the issue right here, isn't it? Currently there are few options. That's the problem, and I honestly don't blame anyone for trying to make the best possible decisions to secure theirs and their children's future, I really don't.

Please also know that when I say potential and multiple BTLs, I am talking about multiple in both cases. And perhaps this is where the government need to step in and cap the number of properties anyone can own, or tax more heavily profits made purely on the back of BTL, to make it less attractive. At the same time making business investment more attractive, perhaps even securing some of the risk - I don't know, maybe the likes of the dragons or Sralan could get together with the Princes Trust or something, come up with a way to identify good business investment opportunities or social enterprises, backed by the government. I'd far rather see people's investments in people secured, rather than the banks in something like the help to buy scheme.

But if property is the best and most secure investment for the long haul, then why not commercial properties to let, or look for a B&B opportunity in an area where tourism is essential part of the local economy, and employ local people to run it? The trouble is of course, BTL is really the best way of getting a high return on very little input, something for nothing, some might say.

So really there is still no dialogue around how Buy to Let impacts on the Housing Market and Social Housing Crisis. The government is reliant upon individuals keeping schtum about the downside because their main concern is the obvious personal benefit. And I'm sorry but I don't think it is outweighed by being able to volunteer more, or give more to charity - that doesn't offset the damage to the housing crisis. There should be ways to do both.

^Indeed in Lord McFall‘s much complimented Treasury Select Committee investigation into the financial crisis, one of the ignored recommendations was for the government to come up with a strategy for what to do with “its” buy-to-let book. - See more at: blogs.channel4.com/faisal-islam-on-economics/how-buy-to-let-was-bailed-out-is-back-and-is-bad-for-britain/13277#sthash.71EZ49Fa.dpuf^

Our politicians really need to grow a pair.

dialforpizza this country will always have a housing problem when we have no where to build yet the population continues to grow and immigration is high.
Maybe we should just stop immigration and people should only have one child ? Oh no that is against human rights, and so is the government stepping in and telling me how many properties I can buy. I pay tax on my profit (when I make any) as does any business. It certainly isn't money for nothing, my DH and I work very hard managing our properties and holding down full time jobs to support our family and provide for our future.

That's a very warped view of human rights HaveToWearHeels.

You say we need to build more, yet there are many older properties below living standards or boarded up in the city nearest to me. In the new builds on the outskirts of our village, half of which are "affordable", they are struggling to sell.

You may manage your properties, many don't. Managing properties makes up a good proportion of letting agent business. Others just don't bother at all, or very begrudgedly when it's something that affects the profit margins.

I am suggesting the government do more to encourage people away from making investments that damage our economy and housing availability, and do more to support investments that don't. How can that be a bad thing?

Would it not have been more appropriate to start your own thread berating people who have buy to let properties rather than hijacking this one dialforpizza.

I thinkthe posters have been quite polite replying your demands that they explain themselves. I would have told you to fuck off. Especially as you admit deliberately goading.

Agree Pagwatch, and because of that "I'm out"

Pagwatch, I'm not demanding people explain themselves on an individual basis - I have been at pains to state that. Nor would I start a thread deliberately to berate people, but maybe one to look at the bigger issues this topic throws up. I'm sorry you think I am hijacking, it seemed a relevant and supported point I was making in my first post, and I am responding since to posts which have been in response to mine.

I didn't and don't admit to deliberatly goading, I admitted my post might have come across in a "goady kind of way" (defensive really in response to being told I was "landlord bashing", "there's always one" and "eating too much pizza" etc) all of which reduces debate to a personal level, which I have been trying to get away from.

Anyway, since I've been called on hijacking I will respectfully back out. Apologies, OP.

If you want to discuss the morality etc of buy to let, start a thread.

It is way more appropriate than hectoring people on a thread providing info to landlords.

It's a perfectly valid viewpoint and discussion. Just start a discussion rather than stamping on someone elses thread.