Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

I can't disagree with you - most of my frustration arises from knowing all these facts and more.

I don't have 50k to throw away but I might have 50k to invest in restructuring a business that I don't want confiscated from me. And FWIW, I am in your position on CGT so Id do anything to incorporate without such a bill. New properties will be bought through a company, but in doing so one loses any chance of potential S162 on the existing portfolio, plus of course the new SDLT. Hence it is a massively stressful decision.

I've met Mark Smith and he is absolutely credible and can explain every detail, yet I too am still reluctant to take my opportunity. I know I will end up procrastinating my way into staying as I am and never being able to incorporate the existing businesses.

I can, will, and am raising rents in exactly the way you suggest. I don't want to but it's inevitable. My houses are superb, well above average rentals, and already command regular expensive refurbishments. So rents will soon be 30% higher - my existing rents are low so there's slack to be taken up.

I know how some lenders can be, but others are saying they are quite relaxed about BICT. That's even more frustrating! Some will allow it but some won't!

Bloody nightmare.

I am speaking to mark smith at 10.30 I have 15 with the tmw surely they will come out and and show their hand soon and make it easier to incorporate I am lost at what to do aswell to say I am angry would be an understatement time is of the essence

Reply to the comment left by "NW Landlord" at "21/03/2016 - 07:45":

Just to confirm and clarify my earlier post TMW do NOT have a term that requires them to be notified if you transfer the beneficial interest in your properties. This is true for both individuals snd company loans. The reference to beneficial interest in their terms relates to the fact that if they have lent to you as a company rather than an individual then the beneficial interest in the company's shares cannot be transferred without their consent.

>NW Landlord

If you were to ask him the question I posed earlier (repeated below) and share the answer, that would be appreciated

"> Mark Smith

I am no lawyer and have no basis on which to question the legal opinion supporting the scheme, or your implementation of it.

However, I have a hard time getting my head round the fact that the scheme is so benign that the lender doesn’t even need to know and, even if it did know, that it is within the T&Cs anyway, yet so significant that it triggers a liability for SDLT

To use the example that you cite in your post here, BM. If BM disagrees with the legal opinion on which the scheme is built and does, in fact, call in a mortgage or take other action against the borrower, what happens? Do you / your Chambers / the QC providing the legal opinion / Pump Chambers / a PII policy cover the costs arising for the scheme participant?"

Will do

Reply to the comment left by "Jon Pipllman" at "21/03/2016 - 08:02":

Jon - I don't believe you should think of it as a scheme. There always has been a distinction between legal and beneficial titles to property although 99% of the time they are never seperated. However the mortgage is attached to the legal title and tax to the beneficial title. That is why this is benign in the eyes of the lender yet triggers liability to tax in the eyes of HMRC. Just because something is unusual does not make it fraud! I can confirm that Mark Smith's fee includes an after sales service that would run to representation in tax tribunals should it be challenged

> Nicholas Dickinson

I have no reason to doubt what you are saying.

But, as has already been seen with the West Brom, the lender and Judges can have a different interpretation of its terms than its borrowers and their Advisers.

The tax tribunal aspect is one thing and it is nice to see that it is covered, but I am specifically asking about the costs incurred as a result of a lender calling in mortgages, even though (according to the advice) no terms have been breached.

Reply to the comment left by "Jon Pipllman" at "21/03/2016 - 08:21":

I take the view that because there is no reference to beneficial interest in my mortgage terms it is not relevant to my mortgage provider and there is therefore no basis on which they can object. If you take the view that lenders will use any excuse to call in their loans you are unlikely to follow this road

Reply to the comment left by "Nicholas Dickinson" at "21/03/2016 - 08:28":

Nicholas,

This idea might be a bit out there, but have you actually asked your lender? If not, why not?

Seems to me by far the simplest route...

I think UKAR would try hard to find a way to make such an arrangement a breach - after all, it wants to wind up its book

I don't think other lenders would necessarily call in loans, even if they believed that they could position the BICT arrangement as a breach.

But I do think they might seek to apply a higher interest rate, fees, or other conditions (for that read ££ to be paid by the borrower).

If I was going down this route, I would sleep easy only if I had specifically asked the question of my own lenders against the terms that applied to my loans.

Others won't feel the need to do that.

It isn't my place to advise one way or another.