Mortgages

Rain (AM and PM) 8° London Hi 9°C / Lo 3°C

Buy-to-let landlords hit hard by recession

Number unable to keep up with their mortgage payments doubles to 27,000

By James Daley, Personal Finance Editor

The number of buy-to-let landlords unable to keep up payments on their mortgages more than doubled during the second half of last year, hitting record highs of almost 27,000.

Meanwhile, the number of repossessions of privately owned homes also leapt – finishing the year up more than 55 per cent on 2007 at 40,000.

The figures, published by the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) yesterday, are the latest indication of the extent of the collapse in the UK economy during the second half of last year, as unemployment rose, house prices slumped and GDP growth moved into negative territory.

The buy-to-let sector has been the hardest hit over the past year. The number of landlords who are three months or more behind on their mortgage payments rose by 257 per cent between the end of 2007 and the end of 2008, as landlords failed to secure the rents they needed to meet their loan payments. New lending in the buy-to-let sector has also plummeted, falling by 56 per cent in the final quarter of last year. Although repossessions of private homes increased during the second half of the year, the rise was not as fast as some had feared.

The Government introduced new rules towards the end of 2008, pressuring lenders to give borrowers more time if they couldn’t keep up mortgage payments. This is believed to have helped keep the number of repossessions down, although the Government’s Homeowner Mortgage Support Scheme – which was also announced last year, has yet to be put into place. It is expected to open in April.

Economists and politicians claim that the Government needs to do more if it is to stem the rise in repossessions. “Deep economic contraction, sharply rising unemployment, high debt levels, substantially lower equity and house prices, and more and more people being trapped in negative equity will exact an increasing toll on individuals over the coming months,” said Howard Archer, chief UK economist at the consultants Global Insight.

“While the substantial cuts in interest rates by the Bank of England will obviously help some people, they are likely to be insufficient to save many from insolvency and losing their houses. Government measures to help homeowners in trouble are also likely to have only a limited impact,” he said. “The many people who had to stretch themselves to the absolute limit to get into the housing market in recent years are particularly vulnerable. The more that house prices fall, the more people will be trapped with negative equity.”

In the private housing market, the statistics showed a jump in the number of voluntary possessions – where owners simply hand over their keys to the mortgage company. The number of such voluntary possessions rose 65 per cent to 4,630.

But the CML director general, Michael Coogan, urged borrowers to contact their lender and ask for support, rather than giving up once they run into troubles. “Borrowers are still liable for their debt, even if they leave the property, so working through their problems is much more likely to be in their best interests,” he said. “We know the plethora of schemes and initiatives is daunting, and we are working closely with government and advice agencies to try to simplify the information available, and ensure that those borrowers who may qualify for help get access to the information and advice that they need at the right time.”

The Liberal Democrats blamed the Government for the rise in repossessions, accusing Gordon Brown of “sitting on his hands”. “The much- publicised Homeowner Mortgage Support Scheme announced last year has not yet helped a single family in trouble,” said Nick Clegg, the leader. “The Prime Minister’s wasteful complacency means that millions of extra families could be added to already full social housing lists.

“If the Government was serious about stemming the tide of repossessions, it would give courts the power to ensure repossession is the absolute last resort and remove the barriers to allow councils to invest in social housing.”

What to do if you can’t meet your payments

Talk to your lender

The Government has been putting pressure on banks and building societies to go easy on borrowers who are struggling – and the bank is more likely to give you a break if you call them as soon as you know you are going to miss a payment. Try not to wait until after the event. Ask your lender to let you have a month or two off your payments, or to make smaller payments. They’re more likely to say yes if you can convince them that a break will help you get back on track.

Seek advice

Charities such as the Consumer Credit Counselling Service (www.cccs.org.uk) and Citizens Advice (www.citizensadvice.org.uk) provide free advice for people struggling with their loan payments. If you haven’t managed to persuade your lender to reduce your payments, or to give you a break, organisations such as the CCCS can talk to your lender on your behalf. They can also help you put a more manageable payment plan together for all your loans – to help you get back on a stable financial footing.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Buy-to-Let You Down from Roy Billericay
[info]royhaines wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 07:49 am (UTC)
I set out the text of a letter I wrote to "Financial World" (The Journal of the Chartered Institute of Bankers) in Dec 1994:- the letter was published in the Jan `95 edition.

"HOUSE PRICES

I fear that Mervyn King`s repoted comments might be stating the obvious but
there is one vast difference today in comparison with the last housing market
crash of the early 90`s.
"Buy To Let" "investors" have forced prices up in many areas with little notice of
their gearing if interest rates rise so that mortgage expenditure exceeds rental
income. In many cases they have borrowed against notional capital gains on
existing properties with little realisation that if the investment is realised 40%
Capital Gains Tax is likely to be paid on the Capital against which they have
borrowed.

Forced sales of tenanted properties will realise less than vacant posession.
In short the Buy to Let Market might lead to a property price meltdown far
worse than what we saw a decade ago.

R L Haines ACIB"

Enough said I think but I recall the old TV advert with a Bank Manager "hiding" in a cupboard. Were were these Execs and advisors/economists/forecasters hiding in darkness when they allowed a pimple on the end of their noses turn into a ifnancial carbuncle? And some of them convince themselves that they should be further rewarded for ineptitude.
Bank`s need accountants, auitors and actuaries in charge not jumped up market traders.
Re: Buy-to-Let You Down from Roy Billericay
[info]paul999 wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 08:48 am (UTC)
Very prescient but did you mean 2004/2005 rather than Dec 1994. My house value was still in the toilet in 1994.

Correction from Roy Billericay
[info]royhaines wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 08:13 am (UTC)
Sorry Folks! Ooops! The letter to Financial World was written DECEMBER 2004 (not 1994)
Re: Correction from Roy Billericay
[info]paul999 wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 08:49 am (UTC)
And you answered my earlier question before it appeared - you do know the future :-)
Good!
[info]testing_times wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 08:46 am (UTC)
!
Re: Good!
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 08:47 pm (UTC)
hear hear
Let Buy to Let Be
[info]mindful2020 wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 09:56 am (UTC)
Skewed reporting distorts public perception and here is one example.
Not all buy to let landlords have high gearing (large mortgages) and not all landlords fall behind with mortgage payments. Tenants paying reasonable rents will still be paying rent ....
Many landlords are into property for the long term. Many more use the property as their principle pension fund and remain quite unaffected by the paper reduction in values. These values need not be crystallised into any loss at all - Income still flows and landlords are happy to wait for values to regain previous levels. Even when values are restored the landlord will see no reason to sell their property but of course the media will then be making the opposite misleading claim - Property prices "race ahead" - "sky-rocket" - Or whatever other popular phrase happens to catch the imagination of the reader.
Re: Let Buy to Let Be
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 08:51 pm (UTC)
five gives you ten that with many tenants being on housing benefit the taxpayer has been buying these vultures' houses for them
No sympathy
[info]maffski wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 10:11 am (UTC)
These buy to let speculators should not be given any special consideration whatsoever, they knew the risk when they took on these multiple mortgages and in so doing fuelled the ludicrous house price inflation which made it much more difficult for so many thousands of people to afford houses of their own, condemning huge ammounts of low income people into a vicious cycle of being trapped in the rental system. If the specualtors can not afford to pay their mortgage then the banks should foreclose on them and free the properties up which would help bring house prices down to sane levels and get some of these people excluded from the game into the housing market.

These buy to let speculators are the architects of their own demise...
[info]hpcbeliever wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 10:17 am (UTC)
The risk of landlords being repossessed just underlines the need to protect tenants better. All landlords should need premission from their bank. When the bank gives this permission it should be the case that it is then obliged by law to respect the terms of the contract with the tenant. Obviously this will entail new risks for a bank and thus BTL mortgages will become more appropriately priced to reflect that risk. Secondly, at present if a landlord goes bankrupt and owes the tenant money (perhaps for breaking the contract in some way) there is no recourse for the tenant. The deposit system should be changed so that both sides guarantee an equal deposit with TDS. If the landlord then owe3s the tenant money this can be easily secured. Finally whilst it is, of course, sad when people lose their homes, it should be noted that they did take on that risk when buying the homes (and could have taken out insurance). In order to stop another bubble people have to lose their homes as a warning to others in the future.
Not a word about their tenants
[info]tominlondon wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 10:56 am (UTC)
Nothing is said, in this entire article, about what happens to the tenants of these landlords. I suppose nobody gives a toss.
Rigsby Revisted 2009
[info]humble_sparrow wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 01:27 pm (UTC)
Not wishing any failure on anyone but many buy-to-let landlords have taken over whole areas of suburbia and put tenants in who think it is OK to dump sofas and mattresses and old fridges just outside the front door expecting everyone else except themselves to clean up the mess. It's the 'councils job to clean up my mess' mentality.

and then there is the tenant who buys a 200 watt amplifier with heavy base AND sub-woofer that reverberates through the whole neighbourhood and can't understand for the life of him why one doesn't like Trance music late at night and somehow thinks you are denying him freedom of expression because you want him to stop. Now he was was an incredible character.

and then there was the landlord who refurbished a bathroom and just dumped a bath, a sink, a toilet, all the plaster and the pipes in the front and just left it there for weeks. He was too big and burly to confront, you know one of those builders who have a big smirk on their face and go round in big vans with 'no job too small' on.

and then there was the tenant who invited all his mates around and at 1am in the morning accidentally demolished a brick wall, he just hid and was much quieter for weeks after that, which really was a blessing in disguise.

and they even had a government minister down from London to come and assess the situation because the whole area had turned into what looked like a neglected war zone.

Most buy-to-let landlords are just the old version of absentee landlords who only come and go to collect the rent, neglect the fabric of buildings and gardens and consider they have no personal responsibility to help look after the integrity of a neighbourhood.

That doesn't mean that there aren't responsible landlords and tenants but you know what I mean, I just would like to see a few more of them.

One could make a great situation comedy of it all, honestly :-)
Irresponsible policies come home to roost
[info]edjzet wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 01:46 pm (UTC)
I never understood this BTL thing.

There used to be no bank anywhere that leant you money to gamble with shares on the stock exchange, even if you were adamantly confident that you, with your specialist knowledge, would make a living.

Yet they were happy to do precisely that with houses, the value of which can go up or down just like shares, remember?, and they were even encouraged by a clueless Government. In this country, that is, because in countries like Holland or Germany you wouldn't be able to get a mortgage for it in the first place.

But then, the banks thought they were on a winner, because all the risk was for the homeowner, and all the profits for them, or so they thought until the sub-prime monster hit back. In the meantime the BTL scheme was a double whammy for those who have to rent, because the ratchet construction drove up the rent.

And now the suckers who fell for the glossy brochures will go bankrupt and the poor banks will again be lumbered with a hole in their finances. Guess who will be footing the bill?

Is it too much to ask that the politician responsible for this folly bows his head in shame and vacates his place, so that someone with more sense can take over?
[info]rozr wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 04:18 pm (UTC)
hard to be at all sorry for these people who all too often seem to have given up good jobs because of greed, convinced they'd make a comfortable fortune on buy to let. But what they were doing in so many cases is grabbing cheaply property that first time buyers could have taken on and improved and made a home. Some of the rents aspired to by these speculators seemed to me absolutely excessive, based on the absolute max they could screw from the first time buyer types who couldn't afford to buy and need to save, or from poor students whose debts will be shocking enough without sharks taking more off them. Is anyone sorry for these speculators who thought they were onto a goldmine? I'm sorry for their tenants.
I agree
[info]tominlondon wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 08:44 pm (UTC)
Absolutely, rozr. Let them rot.
Gamblers
[info]np57np wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 08:05 pm (UTC)
The BTL bunch I have no sympathy for are those who bought during the last 3 or 4 years, their business plan based on asset value rises and not on rental income. These people just gambled, plain and simple, and were too stupid to see a property price meltdown on the horizon. It's mother natures way of clearing out the stupid. They also helped ramp up prices, and had unfair advantage against FTBs as they get tax relief.
No mention of tenants here, they're just used as rental fodder, and not considered to be human beings.
Well, roll on the crash and then we won't need landlords. We'll be able to buy a house, which, if you work, should be your right. They'll be 66% cheaper than peak prices, and sooner than you think as this depression rolls out.
buy to let
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 08:41 pm (UTC)
buy to let was no more than a licence to print money. I feel sorry for the poor tenants, not the landlords
Let Buy To Let Be
[info]mindful2020 wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 09:14 pm (UTC)
vhawk1951
Says Landlords are vultures.
When a vulture takes a tenant under his wing the tenant enjoys a roof over his head - Would vhawk1951 prefer to be homeless / wait till he has saved enough to buy his own roof / chance his hard earned savings in property that is today losing value faster than he could earn the same amount?
"You pays your money and takes your chance"
Re: Let Buy To Let Be
[info]btlaretossers wrote:
Saturday, 14 March 2009 at 12:11 am (UTC)
mindful2020, stop trying to justify your own existence you lowlife piece of scum. Everyone should bow to you yes? "Wait till he's saved enough" that's a no chance with lowlife like you charging extortionate rent. "...property today that is losing value.." yes, because greedy scum like you forced the house prices to rise. "You pays your money and takes your chance" Yes, and it won't be with scum BTL landlords like you. Lets see how you get on now with house prices dropping like a stone.
Re: Let Buy To Let Be
[info]mindful2020 wrote:
Saturday, 14 March 2009 at 12:46 pm (UTC)
Re: Let Buy To Let Be
Posted by btlaretossers
Re: Let Buy To Let Be
[info]mindful2020 wrote:
Saturday, 14 March 2009 at 12:53 pm (UTC)
Re: Let Buy To Let Be
Posted by btlaretossers .

Abusive comments of this sort suggest that the "btlaretossers" remark comes from someone deprived, depraved or both. A sad rather disoriented reader.
[info]karennow wrote:
Saturday, 24 October 2009 at 04:24 pm (UTC)
Its never easy when you have to collect rents if you are a Buy To Let Mortgage Landlord, and the state of the economy certainly is not helping.
buy to let
[info]tonyjonson1 wrote:
Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 07:18 pm (UTC)
Its a bad time for sure for buy to let mortgages landlords and most finance related.