is this a good idea or just a lot of hassle?

[witheld]

Hi all

I am not on the property ladder as yet, and am currently renting out a flat with my wife in London.

We have been offered a property via the inlaws who do not want to sell the property to ayone in th current market, but wouldnt mind selling it to us.

My problem is that the property is in surrey, and I do not want to commute to london. Can i therefore buy this property using a mortgage as if i were a first time buyer, but then buy-to -let the property, as I stay in rented accomodtion in london?

I basically want to do this to sell it once property prices go up, rental yield is not my main concern.

[brian]

No - if you're going to use the property as a BTL, then you need a BTL mortgage - if it's going to be your sole residence, then do that.

Frankly, you get much better tax breaks on it being your residence that it's not really worth having a BTL mortgage until you already own your own home.

There are a load of tax implications, not least Capital Gains Tax, which means on a BTL property, when sold for a profit, the government immediately claims 20+% of that.

[Dan S]

Hi Withheld.

Although Brian's absolutely right about needing a Buy to Let Mortgage, there's nothing stopping you from buying it and allowing a lodger to move in under the Government's rent a room scheme. You can also apply for a consent to let several months down the line, which would give you all the rights of a Buy To Let mortgage, but normally with a lower interest rate (albeit for a limited period before you were asked to change to a nomal buy to let mortgage).

I hope this helps.

[ComareTheMortgageMarket]

Dan S Im not entirely sure of the residential/buy to let implications of the rent-a-room scheme when not actually living in it yourself and buying it with a residential mortgage. Residential is always the cheapest option and as mentioned before does not have the additional tax implications of an investment property.