 |
1.5% is a very steep hike.
So what? Are you advocating that clients commit fraud?
Might it not discourage home-owners from informing the lender or even put them off renting the house out at all?
Homeowners? If they owned the home as a home owner then they would not be renting it out in the first place - it would be their home!!!
Put them off renting? - What on earth? If they own their home, as a home, then they can't rent it out.
Buy-to-let exists for a reason. As a lender one of the reasons why we charge higher rates for buy-to-let property is because, unlike a normal residential mortgage, there is an inherent higher risk lending money to someone who will have no emotional attachment to the property. For them, it's purely an investment. Whereas your average homeowner will see the property as their home and WANT to look after it.
While I'm sure that the majority of buy-to-let landlords want to look after their property they will not do so as if it were the home that they live in.
You seem to forget that just because someone has a mortgage it does not mean that they own the property.
That ownership belongs to the lender and we want to ensure that our assets are looked after.
If we lend money to someone to purchase a property to live in and then they choose not to do so then that increases the risk to us that they will not protect the interests of that asset and also increase the risk that the asset will get damaged, hence higher pricing.
That's at a very basic level - but I'm sure even your most retarded readers understand that. View profile |