On 2007-11-08 18:46:38 +0000, Maria said:

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:43:15 GMT, "Mark" wrote:

Publican..?

No...my brother-in-law is just getting out...big pub on a
working-class estate. There just isn't the business anymore and the
smoking ban is the final straw for proifts.

Good. This is about the one and only case of profit for the wrong
reason. It's noticable how revolting smoking is in bars and
restaurants in the remaining countries still permitting it.

The sooner it goes altogether, the better.


CAMRA reckoned in 2005 that 26 pubs per month were closing, but if you
have yummy food like that on the menu, you are in a much better
position!

But would customers of said big pub know what sea bass actually is?

In article , The Natural
Philosopher scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Phil Gardner
scribeth thus
I know this is a bit OT but
I am about to exchange contracts on my first buy to let property in
the next 3 weeks and im getting cold feet.

I have re-mortgaged my house to release the equity to pay for this its
something I have always wanted to do.

Due to the turmoil in the housing and finance market I am beginning to
question my judgment and timing
Is anyone on this forum in this business that could offer advice.


Look at it short term and run a mile!..

Look at it long term .. and yep, good as investment as any.

Historically a slightly worst investment than average actually.

A stock market tracker over the same period would have done better.


Well in Cambridge ... you know that place.. Of silly prices......

--
Tony Sayer

Phil Gardner wrote:
I know this is a bit OT but
I am about to exchange contracts on my first buy to let property in
the next 3 weeks and im getting cold feet.

I have re-mortgaged my house to release the equity to pay for this its
something I have always wanted to do.

Due to the turmoil in the housing and finance market I am beginning to
question my judgment and timing
Is anyone on this forum in this business that could offer advice.

Not the best time to be buying property unless you really need to move
from where you live. As you have remortgaged to finance this you are no
more exposed to the property market (up or down) than before and you
have thus split your investment over more than one property. But you now
have a bigger mortgage, and rents are unlikely to rise to cover any
increase in mortgage rate, nor increases in maintenance costs etc.

no I would not invest in BTL now. If the market does go down there will
be a time when you could afford to buy a repossed property for a lot
less, and find plenty of tenants among the repossessed, or builders
happy to sell their new builds at a discount, and banks willing to lend
to low risks. Which is where all this BTL enthusiasm got going in the
early 90s. but now is not the time.


--
djc

In article . com,
normanwisdom scribeth thus
Nobody seems to have mentioned the ethics of BTL - the fact is that
it's a low form of capitalistic parasitism - hoping to earn money
merely by owning something that other people need. Providing a service
which nobody wants. Nobody loves a landlord, and BTL is a big factor
in cranking up house prices. Be warned - the bubble may burst at any
time and everybody will have a good laugh at the landlords in
difficulties.

|Yep.. and the tenants will do what?..

Different if you were building new - that could be a useful thing to
do.

cheers
Jacob


'Fraid you don't understand the BTL market. The ones we have are used by
people visiting the area for several years, and more often than not they
have their property rented out elsewhere.

Now what's wrong with that?..
--
Tony Sayer

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 12:36:34 +0000, Phil Gardner wrote:

I know this is a bit OT but
I am about to exchange contracts on my first buy to let property in
the next 3 weeks and im getting cold feet.

I have re-mortgaged my house to release the equity to pay for this its
something I have always wanted to do.

Due to the turmoil in the housing and finance market I am beginning to
question my judgment and timing
Is anyone on this forum in this business that could offer advice.

It will depend on your costings, the rental market in your area, and
whether you can afford to subsidise the venture in the short term,

Buy to let is a solid reliable business over the long haul, you won't be
making the sort of capital gains that have been potentially made over
the last few years. You won't do that for a very very long time.

Why? The prices are dependant on the demand (intense and likely to remain
so) and interest rates (medium and stable). Prices are not set to rise and
they could be set to fall a bit (at least in real terms if not actual).

The short/medium term demand for housing is likely to remain intense
because of the easterners. Although the gov't (whose medium
term prospects are poor) would like a lot of new homes built, local
authorities are not keen to put them anywhere specific. A different govt
might be unwilling to take on local authorities on this issue as
their voters already have houses and reducing house prices (by increasing
supply) is political suicide.

The economy seems reasonably stable but...If interest rates rise it will
affect you in several ways.
1) Your mortgage repayments will go up.
2) Rent will slowly rise (as more people won't be able to afford to buy so
will have to rent).
3) You will be earning less than other forms of investment including
paying off those mortgages.

So it really comes down not so much to housing market but your confidence
in the economy and the stability of interest rates.

The type of property, it's state of repair and the likely tenant profile
are really siginifcant issues but I take it that you've done your homework
and costings. If you've simply been told by a salesman "you can't lose"
then that's not going to be enough info to make a serious decision.


--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 07:24:00 -0800, Man at B&Q wrote:


House prices aren't the only issue here though. You also have to
consider the rental returns

Agreed.

....(which are suffereing)

Not from my perspective rents are generally moving up as people find that
have to rent because they still can't afford to buy. Interest rate rises
have compounded the unaffordability of buying and so demand for rental is
waxing.


and whether your
money would be better somewhere else.

Probably, but property is
1) (At least most of ) it's own collateral.
2) less volatile that other investments


--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 07:38:49 -0800, Anita Palley wrote:

On 8 Nov, 15:24, Man at B&Q wrote:

House prices aren't the only issue here though. You also have to
consider the rental returns (which are suffereing) and whether your
money would be better somewhere else.

Fair point, although even small capital growth can more than make up
for mediocre rental returns. Also I'd steer well clear of city centre
2 bed "luxury apartments". These are notoriously overpriced, you're
competing with every other landlord in the block to get them let, and
they've been falling in value while the rest of the market has boomed.

People do well to remember that a brand new dwelling has about a 20% mark
up over a 10 year home. It escapes me why people should want to buy
something that is going to take a certain amount of snagging (hassle if
not cost) just to have everything new but perhaps not as practical/durable
as needed.



--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html

On 2007-11-08 17:55:56 +0000, normanwisdom said:

On 8 Nov, 17:27, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:06:45 -0800 Normanwisdom wrote :

Nobody seems to have mentioned the ethics of BTL - the fact is that
it's a low form of capitalistic parasitism - hoping to earn money
merely by owning something that other people need. Providing a service
which nobody wants.

Which lots of people want. If you rent, you know more or less exactly
what your outgoings are and you're free to move on at minimal cost if
you need to move for any reason. And you only need a three or four
figure deposit.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

True there are those who need to rent in that sense but most do it
because they can't afford to buy - which is made worse by BTL boosting
prices. And many can't afford a 3 or4 figure deposite - and of those
that can many don't see it again. I've had 3 kids at Uni at various
times and they have all been ripped off by landlords not returning
deposites.

Notwithstanding the relative merits and demerits of BTL as an
investment; the private landlord in the university environment is a
good thing. If he attempts to be less than honest, then it provides
an excellent supplement to their education - i.e. how to recover a
legitimate debt.

The difference between undergraduate and graduate is effectively one
day. If they are mollycoddled until age 21 and enter the real world
without the skillset to handle a commercial deal, then they have been
done a disservice.

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:06:45 -0800, normanwisdom wrote:

Nobody seems to have mentioned the ethics of BTL - the fact is that
it's a low form of capitalistic parasitism - hoping to earn money
merely by owning something that other people need.

My tenants probably earn more than me but I own
more than they do. So I TRADE their income for my property.

Providing a service
which nobody wants.
Many people like to have a home.

Nobody loves a landlord,
I don't do it to be loved.

and BTL is a big factor
in cranking up house prices.

Yes and no. If it fuels a BTL bubble then yes. In practice the demand
(brought on by demographic and migration effects) is much more to do with
it.


Be warned - the bubble may burst at any
time
I'm really rather the opposite of gung ho over business decisions.

and everybody will have a good laugh at the landlords in
difficulties.

All my properties are paid for, I doubt I will be in trouble, I have
relatively little sympathy for a short term BTL landlord who is not
committed to the long haul.

It is a useful activity managing rental property. I, say, manage housing
for a group of twenty somethings these are people who need a home but have
not yet acquired the skills or capital own or run a home of their own.


--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:55:56 -0800, normanwisdom wrote:

On 8 Nov, 17:27, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:06:45 -0800 Normanwisdom wrote :

Nobody seems to have mentioned the ethics of BTL - the fact is that
it's a low form of capitalistic parasitism - hoping to earn money
merely by owning something that other people need. Providing a service
which nobody wants.

Which lots of people want. If you rent, you know more or less exactly
what your outgoings are and you're free to move on at minimal cost if
you need to move for any reason. And you only need a three or four
figure deposit.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

True there are those who need to rent in that sense but most do it
because they can't afford to buy - which is made worse by BTL boosting
prices. And many can't afford a 3 or4 figure deposite - and of those
that can many don't see it again. I've had 3 kids at Uni at various
times and they have all been ripped off by landlords not returning
deposites.


Take said *******s to court. Anyway deposits are now protected.



--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html

normanwisdom wrote:
Or to put it another way - hoping to get an income of the backs of
people worse off than yourself who can't afford to buy houses. Should
be against the law!

roll on the revolution - landlords first to the wall!

cheers
Jacob



We're not all like that.

Phil,

I own a flat which is let. It's in a University town (lots of students)
where property is fairly cheap and the rental return is good.

I am not making any profit. In fact, if you count the loss of interest
on the capital I put in, I'm making a loss. I have several reasons for
doing it. I might make capital profit on it. I have locked into a
possibly rising property market (and I think it will rise, long term if
not short term). I can afford to pay the mortgage even were it empty -
so I won't be forced into a sudden sale at a loss.

But it isn't going to be empty. I have a guaranteed tenant. One of
those 20-somethings who can't get on the housing ladder. One who has
been messed up by previous landlords, and I felt pity for him, with the
instability of annual rentals, impossibility of getting repairs and
trouble getting deposits back. A tenant I know quite well. My son.

He was a bit shocked when I told him I expected him to buy it off me one
day. The price will of course be the lowest I can get past the taxman...

Andy

Maria wrote:

No...my brother-in-law is just getting out...big pub on a
working-class estate. There just isn't the business anymore and the
smoking ban is the final straw for proifts.

The anti smoking fascists would lead you to believe that it increases
custom. But since they lie about everything else.......

CAMRA reckoned in 2005 that 26 pubs per month were closing, but if you
have yummy food like that on the menu, you are in a much better
position!

Sea bass yummy? Its a rat that swims. You couldn't pay me to eat it.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-11-08 18:46:38 +0000, Maria
said:
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:43:15 GMT, "Mark" wrote:

Publican..?

No...my brother-in-law is just getting out...big pub on a
working-class estate. There just isn't the business anymore and the
smoking ban is the final straw for proifts.

Good. This is about the one and only case of profit for the wrong
reason. It's noticable how revolting smoking is in bars and
restaurants in the remaining countries still permitting it.

The sooner it goes altogether, the better.

Typical anti smoking fascist. Remember when people had a choice?

Entirely possible to have smoking & non smoking pubs/bars/areas.

It's called freedom to choose.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

In message , The
Medway Handyman writes
Maria wrote:

No...my brother-in-law is just getting out...big pub on a
working-class estate. There just isn't the business anymore and the
smoking ban is the final straw for proifts.

The anti smoking fascists would lead you to believe that it increases
custom. But since they lie about everything else.......

Sorry, no sympathy from this corner, I gave up over two years ago


--
geoff

geoff wrote:
In message , The
Medway Handyman writes
Maria wrote:

No...my brother-in-law is just getting out...big pub on a
working-class estate. There just isn't the business anymore and the
smoking ban is the final straw for proifts.

The anti smoking fascists would lead you to believe that it increases
custom. But since they lie about everything else.......

Sorry, no sympathy from this corner, I gave up over two years ago

You haven't given up - its just a longer break between fags.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

The Medway Handyman wrote in message
o.uk...
Maria wrote:

No...my brother-in-law is just getting out...big pub on a
working-class estate. There just isn't the business anymore and the
smoking ban is the final straw for proifts.

The anti smoking fascists would lead you to believe that it increases
custom. But since they lie about everything else.......

CAMRA reckoned in 2005 that 26 pubs per month were closing, but if you
have yummy food like that on the menu, you are in a much better
position!

Sea bass yummy? Its a rat that swims. You couldn't pay me to eat it.


A smoker with no taste or knowledge of fish
We still do pie and chips with cheap cider in the local's bar to cater for
your type



-

The Medway Handyman wrote in message
news:QnNYi.103457

Good. This is about the one and only case of profit for the wrong
reason. It's noticable how revolting smoking is in bars and
restaurants in the remaining countries still permitting it.

The sooner it goes altogether, the better.

Typical anti smoking fascist. Remember when people had a choice?

Entirely possible to have smoking & non smoking pubs/bars/areas.

It's called freedom to choose.

Smokers still do have a choice, they can stand outside under a pergola and
freeze to death if the lung cancer doesn't get them first
It keeps them from infecting everyone else inside with their second hand
smoke.


-

In message , The
Medway Handyman writes
geoff wrote:
In message , The
Medway Handyman writes
Maria wrote:

No...my brother-in-law is just getting out...big pub on a
working-class estate. There just isn't the business anymore and the
smoking ban is the final straw for proifts.

The anti smoking fascists would lead you to believe that it increases
custom. But since they lie about everything else.......

Sorry, no sympathy from this corner, I gave up over two years ago

You haven't given up - its just a longer break between fags.


Ah, but having fallen into the "first fag" trap before, I'm well on my
guard against it

.... I hope

--
geoff

Mark wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote in
message news:QnNYi.103457

Good. This is about the one and only case of profit for the wrong
reason. It's noticable how revolting smoking is in bars and
restaurants in the remaining countries still permitting it.

The sooner it goes altogether, the better.

Typical anti smoking fascist. Remember when people had a choice?

Entirely possible to have smoking & non smoking pubs/bars/areas.

It's called freedom to choose.

Smokers still do have a choice, they can stand outside under a
pergola and freeze to death if the lung cancer doesn't get them first
It keeps them from infecting everyone else inside with their second
hand smoke.

Two points. First of all, passive smoking is a complete myth. Agreed it
might be unpleasant for non somokers, but we could easily have 'smoking'
pubs & 'non smoking' pubs. Its called choice.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

Mark wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote in
message o.uk...
Maria wrote:

No...my brother-in-law is just getting out...big pub on a
working-class estate. There just isn't the business anymore and the
smoking ban is the final straw for proifts.

The anti smoking fascists would lead you to believe that it increases
custom. But since they lie about everything else.......

CAMRA reckoned in 2005 that 26 pubs per month were closing, but if
you have yummy food like that on the menu, you are in a much better
position!

Sea bass yummy? Its a rat that swims. You couldn't pay me to eat
it.


A smoker with no taste or knowledge of fish.

I've tried sea bass & its simply awful. Worse than brussel sprouts.

We still do pie and chips with cheap cider in the local's bar to
cater for your type

Great! Where do you live?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

The Medway Handyman wrote in message
news:9YNYi.103463
Entirely possible to have smoking & non smoking pubs/bars/areas.

It's called freedom to choose.

Smokers still do have a choice, they can stand outside under a
pergola and freeze to death if the lung cancer doesn't get them first
It keeps them from infecting everyone else inside with their second
hand smoke.

Two points. First of all, passive smoking is a complete myth.

Yes im bound to take your word for that

Agreed it
might be unpleasant for non somokers, but we could easily have 'smoking'
pubs & 'non smoking' pubs. Its called choice.


Good thinking, I don't smoke no of the bar staff smoke over 90% of
drinking customers don't smoke
So im going to open a pub just to cater for 10% of the possible Dying
clientele who will soon end up in the local hospice.
Fact, more people are using the restaurant in the evenings because the
entire pub is now smoke free.


-


-

The Medway Handyman wrote in message
news:k_NYi.103464

CAMRA reckoned in 2005 that 26 pubs per month were closing, but if
you have yummy food like that on the menu, you are in a much better
position!

Sea bass yummy? Its a rat that swims. You couldn't pay me to eat
it.


A smoker with no taste or knowledge of fish.

I've tried sea bass & its simply awful. Worse than brussel sprouts.


That's because your taste buds are covered in nicotine
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/wine/main...3/edrrec13.xml



-

In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
No...my brother-in-law is just getting out...big pub on a
working-class estate. There just isn't the business anymore and the
smoking ban is the final straw for proifts.

The anti smoking fascists would lead you to believe that it increases
custom. But since they lie about everything else.......

Often used to hear - 'I never go to a pub because they are so smoky'
Wonder if those types now make up for those who don't go anymore because
they can't smoke?

--
*If you don't like the news, go out and make some.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 2007-11-08 23:57:36 +0000, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-11-08 18:46:38 +0000, Maria
said:
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:43:15 GMT, "Mark" wrote:

Publican..?

No...my brother-in-law is just getting out...big pub on a
working-class estate. There just isn't the business anymore and the
smoking ban is the final straw for proifts.

Good. This is about the one and only case of profit for the wrong
reason. It's noticable how revolting smoking is in bars and
restaurants in the remaining countries still permitting it.

The sooner it goes altogether, the better.

Typical anti smoking fascist. Remember when people had a choice?

There still is choice. People who want to smoke can do so outside.
I would prefer it if they do so some way away from the building and
certainly away from the entrance area so that it's not necessary to
walk through it on th way in and out.


Entirely possible to have smoking & non smoking pubs/bars/areas.

Possibly, but for me it isn't particularly the second hand smoke health
risk argument because I was able to avoid exposure to that anyway by
avoiding places where smoking is going on. In so far that that is
places where it isn't generally *necessary* to go such as pubs, they
can be avoided. However it is all of the other places to which the
public have or require access where there isn't a choice or there is
less choice of whether to go in them or not.

I find far more objectionable the smell from smoke in the vicinity or
in places where there has been a lot of smoking and the furnishings
have become saturated with the result. Even worse is the typical
thing of use of heavyweight anti-tobacco air fresheners and cleaning
products used in an attempt to mask it.

For example, for many years I have used availability of non smoking
rooms a criterion for selection of hotels, making it clear on the
booking that it is a condition of staying there. If I find that a
room has been smoked in and dosed with cleaner, I ask for another.
It used to be the case that hotels would only treat non smoking room as
a request and didn't make too much effort - that has gradually changed.
Even in countries where smoking is much more endemic such as Greece
and Russia and to a great extent, Spain, it is changing as well.

In restaurants, or anywhere else that food is served, the smell of
active or stale smoke is particularly objectionable -I find that it
completely ruins the flavour of the food. Non smoking areas simply
don't work, the smell still drifts around. This was tried in a lot
of the U.S. for a number of years and it just isn't satisfactory.

Having some bars and restaurants that have smoking and others not isn't
really a solution either. If one visits a place for the first time,
how does one find each? A lot of time wasted wandering around
finding whichever.

In countries where smoking is still permitted in restaurants, but is
done on a voluntary basis because the owner sees a commercial benefit
or where there is a minimum proportion of area required by law it just
doesn't work. Too often, the premises are physically too small to
prevent wafting of smoke or just the smell of stale stuff from entering
the non smoking area. Even if tables are well spaced, if one is
sitting in a non-smoking area and then somebody comes and lights up at
an adjoining table, it is the same as having gone into a smoking area
in the first place because of the drift and permeation of the fumes.
This completely ruins the whole experience of going to the place.

Certainly when I travel, if I look into a restaurant and figure that
this is likely to happen, I make a point of asking about smoking. In
general, I will go elsewhere and tell them why. In cities in some
countries, it's very difficult to find a restaurant where the effect of
smoking going on can be avoided. In those, I end up looking for a
place where one can get served quickly and get out. The problem is
that these tend not to be the places with the best food - usually the
worst.



It's called freedom to choose.

It is. As a general principle, it is reasonable to describe freedom of
choice as the ability to do whatever one likes provided that that
doesn't impact on the equal right of others to exercise their choices.

Unfortunately, it doesn't really work in this case because smoking does
have an impact on others, whether or not one accepts the passive
smoking health risk argument.

If it were *necessary* to smoke, like it is necessary to eat and drink,
then it would be a different matter.

On 8 Nov, 20:31, Ed Sirett wrote:
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:06:45 -0800, normanwisdom wrote:
Nobody seems to have mentioned the ethics of BTL - the fact is that
it's a low form of capitalistic parasitism - hoping to earn money
merely by owning something that other people need.

My tenants probably earn more than me but I own
more than they do. So I TRADE their income for my property.

Providing a service which nobody wants.

Many people like to have a home.

Nobody loves a landlord,
I don't do it to be loved.

and BTL is a big factor

in cranking up house prices.

Yes and no. If it fuels a BTL bubble then yes. In practice the demand
(brought on by demographic and migration effects) is much more to do with
it.

Be warned - the bubble may burst at any time

I'm really rather the opposite of gung ho over business decisions.

and everybody will have a good laugh at the landlords in

difficulties.

All my properties are paid for, I doubt I will be in trouble, I have
relatively little sympathy for a short term BTL landlord who is not
committed to the long haul.

It is a useful activity managing rental property. I, say, manage housing
for a group of twenty somethings these are people who need a home but have
not yet acquired the skills or capital own or run a home of their own.

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is athttp://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQhttp://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQhttp://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html

I've no prob with people with skills running rental property in a
professional way. My objection is to the substantial number of new
entrants who just see it as easy money and an alternative to a pension
- they are also the ones who will bleat loudest when things don't work
out and probably expect handouts like Northern Rock investors.

cheers
J

In article , The
Medway Handyman scribeth thus
Maria wrote:

No...my brother-in-law is just getting out...big pub on a
working-class estate. There just isn't the business anymore and the
smoking ban is the final straw for proifts.

The anti smoking fascists would lead you to believe that it increases
custom. But since they lie about everything else.......

CAMRA reckoned in 2005 that 26 pubs per month were closing, but if you
have yummy food like that on the menu, you are in a much better
position!

Sea bass yummy? Its a rat that swims. You couldn't pay me to eat it.



In that case I like eating rats

Ever tried the one they do at Signor Sassi in Knightsbridge, that rather
fine Italian place?...
--
Tony Sayer

On Nov 8, 12:36 pm, Phil Gardner wrote:
I know this is a bit OT but
I am about to exchange contracts on my first buy to let property in
the next 3 weeks and im getting cold feet.

I have re-mortgaged my house to release the equity to pay for this its
something I have always wanted to do.

Due to the turmoil in the housing and finance market I am beginning to
question my judgment and timing
Is anyone on this forum in this business that could offer advice.

What sort of property is it, a typical BTL flat for instance?

cheers,
Pete.

On Nov 8, 5:55 pm, normanwisdom wrote:
I've had 3 kids at Uni at various
times and they have all been ripped off by landlords not returning
deposites.


Should have told them to share with a law student.

MBQ

In article 4733df83@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
Typical anti smoking fascist. Remember when people had a choice?

There still is choice. People who want to smoke can do so outside.

Fine on a pleasant summer evening - but not when there's a cold wind and
driving rain. The stupid legislation banns any form of effective shelter.

I would prefer it if they do so some way away from the building and
certainly away from the entrance area so that it's not necessary to
walk through it on th way in and out.

I'd also prefer not having to mix with drunks on the street etc. Many find
those rather more threatening/unpleasant than smokers.

As a sideline, my local rail station constantly plays a message saying
smoking is banned there due to government legislation. Yet more than half
of each platform is totally open - no roof or walls. They must have got
together with CORGI.

--
*Why isn't there a special name for the back of your knee?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
.uk...
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-11-08 18:46:38 +0000, Maria
said:
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:43:15 GMT, "Mark" wrote:

Publican..?

No...my brother-in-law is just getting out...big pub on a
working-class estate. There just isn't the business anymore and the
smoking ban is the final straw for proifts.

Good. This is about the one and only case of profit for the wrong
reason. It's noticable how revolting smoking is in bars and
restaurants in the remaining countries still permitting it.

The sooner it goes altogether, the better.

Typical anti smoking fascist. Remember when people had a choice?

Yes you had a choice to kill others with toxic smoke. What laws did we have
then, allowing people to do that!!! Appalling situation!!!

We had our freedom curtailed. The freedom not to inhale toxic fumes. If
you want to breath in toxic fumes, litter the place with ash and butts and
be fire risk with naked flames, then do it where it doesn't affect me - like
in your own home.

On Nov 8, 7:43 pm, Anita Palley wrote:
On 8 Nov, 17:01, Man at B&Q wrote:

Re-mortgaging was a *bad* move.

You need to get a BTL mortgage on the rental property ASAP. Otherwise
you are not allowed to offset the interest payments against rental and
will be taxed on the full value of the rental payments. Having a
mortgage on the BTL property is like borrowing money to run a
business. If you remortgage your home, you are deemed to be using your
own capital rather than a loan.

Did you take any advice before starting down this road?

I hate to have to say you're wrong, but you are! The test for whether
the mortgage interest is a deductible expense is what the PURPOSE of
the loan was (to buy a rental property), not what the loan is secured
over (or indeed whether it's secured at all) or whether it's marketed
as a BTL mortgage. If in doubt check the Inland Revenue document on
this.


I can't find the original reference I had to this (a newspaper article
IIRC) so I will stand corrected, at least for now.

MBQ

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-11-08 16:37:44 +0000, Andrew May said:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
tony sayer wrote:

Look at it long term .. and yep, good as investment as any.

Historically a slightly worst investment than average actually.

A stock market tracker over the same period would have done better.


Which is probably true. It is surprising therefore that if you go into
a bank and ask to borrow 200k to buy a buy-to-let they won't bat an
eyelid. Go in and ask to borrow 200k to invest in a FTSE100 tracker
and you might get a different response.

Primary residence as collateral?

Oh, I am sure you could do it but I think that any financial adviser
would be far more concerned with making sure it was documented that they
had pointed out the potential downsides than they would it it was BTL.

Andrew

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Phil Gardner wrote:

Encouraging
just like the knowledgeable service you get at B&Q

He's right though. Read up about financial bubbles. They are a perfectly
natural phenomenon, that has been around for thousands of years. We are
currently in the middle of such a bubble, and you are about to buy just
before it bursts.

A housing bubble? No. There is still a shortage of housing. In certain
housing segments things may be difficult. BTL is one, overall no.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

If you want to breath in toxic fumes,
[snip]
then do it where it doesn't affect me - like
in your own home.

You'll be siting boiler flue outlets internally, then? Only driving your
van round your house?

--
*Taxation WITH representation ain't much fun, either.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Anita Palley" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 8 Nov, 13:35, mogga wrote:

www.housepricecrash.co.uk

Beware! That place is a support group for the dispossessed, not a
place for rational analysis of the housing market. A considerable
number of them sold up in 2003 and have been calling a crash everyday
since. I'd put about as much credence on their opinions as I would on
Foxtons.

PWC produce monthly roundups of the whole British Economy which are
pretty comprehensive, and rather better informed. Latest one is here,
see pp.22-26 on the housing market. Their "central" prediction is slow
growth. Their worst-case (5% probability) scenario is not a disaster.
http://www.pwc.co.uk/pdf/uk_economic_download_nov07.pdf

The house crash doomers are politically motivated. For 10 years I have
heard this and they are preying for one to get the government out. The
economy has been very well run over the past 10 years which irks the
opposition.

"Anita Palley" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 8 Nov, 15:24, Man at B&Q wrote:

House prices aren't the only issue here though. You also have to
consider the rental returns (which are suffereing) and whether your
money would be better somewhere else.

Fair point, although even small capital growth can more than make up
for mediocre rental returns. Also I'd steer well clear of city centre
2 bed "luxury apartments". These are notoriously overpriced, you're
competing with every other landlord in the block to get them let, and
they've been falling in value while the rest of the market has boomed.

Liverpool and Manchester promoted lots of new city centre blocks to get
middle class, high expendable income people in the centres. It worked.
There is a glut at the mo' with these. When the city centre industries
catch up and demand increases, the market for these will increase. Many
companies rent these out rather than stick people in hotels. Also, many of
these apartments will be sold off for owner/occupation.

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:50:33 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-11-08 18:46:38 +0000, Maria said:

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:43:15 GMT, "Mark" wrote:

Publican..?

No...my brother-in-law is just getting out...big pub on a
working-class estate. There just isn't the business anymore and the
smoking ban is the final straw for proifts.

Good. This is about the one and only case of profit for the wrong
reason. It's noticable how revolting smoking is in bars and
restaurants in the remaining countries still permitting it.

The sooner it goes altogether, the better.

Being a poster to politics groups, I've wearied of the argyument now!
My position is simply that a pub is private property and it should
have been a matter of freedom of choice for landlords whether their
pub was smoking or non-smoking.


CAMRA reckoned in 2005 that 26 pubs per month were closing, but if you
have yummy food like that on the menu, you are in a much better
position!

But would customers of said big pub know what sea bass actually is?

Nah...working-class people only catch it and flog it - I doubt they'd
recognise it on a plate.

Maria wrote:

Being a poster to politics groups, I've wearied of the argyument now!
My position is simply that a pub is private property and it should
have been a matter of freedom of choice for landlords whether their
pub was smoking or non-smoking.


Just out of interest would you also extend this argument to other
private property? Say, to the factory owner, who should have the freedom
of choice to decide whether to provide safety equipment on machinery.

Although probably not the true reason I was always under the impression
that banning smoking in pubs was as much about, if not mostly about,
providing a safe workplace for the bar staff.

Andrew

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:28:15 +0000, Andrew May
wrote:

Maria wrote:

Being a poster to politics groups, I've wearied of the argyument now!
My position is simply that a pub is private property and it should
have been a matter of freedom of choice for landlords whether their
pub was smoking or non-smoking.


Just out of interest would you also extend this argument to other
private property? Say, to the factory owner, who should have the freedom
of choice to decide whether to provide safety equipment on machinery.

I really don't want to get into this argument (simply because I'm all
argued out from arguments in other groups!)

I have been to countries where roofers just walk up ladders - no
safety helmet or scaffolding or anything. Others go the whole hog and
provide every safety measure. Freedom of choice..
Having said that I think it's a good thing that we have safety
measures in place to protect workers, but at the end of the day,
people negotiate their own workplace conditions and can choose to
leave to work somewhere safer. If they are injured in the workplace,
there is always tort law by which they can claim compensation, which
would naturally cause employers to be careful about any dangers posed
by their machinery..
*If* we were in a situation like 150 years ago where millions of
people slaved in factories all day, usually in the same one all their
life and no union, then I'd adjust my view that the law needs to
intervene more to protect them. But we are not.

As it is, it has gone far too far in places - for example, I have a 16
year old daughter who cannot find part-time work - there are plenty of
cleaning jobs around, but they won't employ her because by law, she is
not allowed to clean toilets. Sorry, but it's just nonsense.


Although probably not the true reason I was always under the impression
that banning smoking in pubs was as much about, if not mostly about,
providing a safe workplace for the bar staff.


Who always have had a choice about where they work, just like asbestos
workers, sewer workers and steeplejacks.

"Maria" wrote in message
...

Having said that I think it's a good thing that we have safety
measures in place to protect workers, but at the end of the day,
people negotiate their own workplace conditions and can choose to
leave to work somewhere safer.

That's ********. The balance of power doesn't permit it. "Choose to leave to
work somewhere safer" doesn't work unless there's quite a shortage of
workers, and there isn't one at the moment.

If they are injured in the workplace,
there is always tort law by which they can claim compensation, which
would naturally cause employers to be careful about any dangers posed
by their machinery..

You'd think - but it's not the case.

cheers,
clive