LandlordZONE

16

Apr, 2014

Wednesday

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 61
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jonthemon View Post
    The CML and DECC will continue to work together to review practical aspects of the implementation of the Green Deal, to ensure concerns around practical aspects (such as liability and costs if repossession occurs) are properly addressed through guidance as necessary.

    <<...because they're not properly addressed currently. Seems to me nobody knows who pays if a property is repossessed. Maybe the eggheads who thought this up don't know about repossessions, or empty properties>>.
    If the Green Deal loan stays with the property as advertised, I would think that once property is repossessed the mortgage lender is liable.
    That's the point of Green Deal loans, right? That you can 'dump' them onto the next occupier/owner


    A potential buyer may be reluctant to purchase a property without reassurances that the Green Deal installation has resulted in a saving, considering the ongoing liability they will inherit with the purchase of the property.
    Spot on.
    Even with actual savings, buyers should price their offers account for them inheriting a loan at apparently a less than favourable rate, imho.

    If the lender is required to make payments then they will probably add the sums paid out to the shortfall or recovered from sale profits.
    Ah of course lenders will try to double screw people. This going to be fun to watch.
    ⊂ Unsuitable for nut allergy sufferers ⊃

  2. #42

    Default

    After a bit more research it appears that if the property is repo'd and the electricity is cut off the owner still has to pay this loan.

    Its not clear how this is enforced, because the loans are not secured on the property, except that there is a charge against the property. Or something.

    Ah yes... the wise old lenders..... when renovating a property from auction after it was on the banks books for a year or two, following a messy repo I found a letter to the previous owner from the sub-prime lender asking very politely when the borrower may be repaying the £140,000+ in arrears and could they get in touch asap.
    Its not recorded whether the previous owner did indeed get in touch and make a payment.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jonthemon View Post
    After a bit more research it appears that if the property is repo'd and the electricity is cut off the owner still has to pay this loan.

    Its not clear how this is enforced, because the loans are not secured on the property, except that there is a charge against the property. Or something.

    Ah yes... the wise old lenders..... when renovating a property from auction after it was on the banks books for a year or two, following a messy repo I found a letter to the previous owner from the sub-prime lender asking very politely when the borrower may be repaying the £140,000+ in arrears and could they get in touch asap.
    Its not recorded whether the previous owner did indeed get in touch and make a payment.
    What's the betting the banks negotiate a get-out for these loan payments, the same as they have done for council tax?

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    676

    Default

    Unlike some of the cynics on this thread, I am all for 'green' energy saving measures to make homes more energy efficient and better insulated.

    However, I have a problem with this "Green Deal". I just don't see the benefit of using the scheme. As a landlord I am encouraged to tag on any costs (ie the loan) to an electricity bill where tenants are left paying it off, but apparently not paying any more than they would have been before the improvements were made.

    This might (just) be acceptable for the current tenants, but what about the next tenants or the next lot after that? They will see a property which will (presumably) have a reasonably good energy performance rating on the EPC, but they will be asked to pay the bills as if it had a lower rating. They'll be consuming lower energy, but paying higher bills. Where is the fairness in that? If I were the tenant I would look elsewhere.

    Likewise, when I come to sell the property, if there is still an amount outstanding to be paid off from the Green Deal loan, it transfers to the new owner for them to continue paying. Hands up any buyers here who would agree to keep paying charges for improvements made on a property undertaken some years before? Again - I certainly wouldn't. I'd insist that the vendor paid off any loans before I agreed to buy the property.

    So I'd be very keen to know why I should bother with the green deal. Anyone?

    As a footnote to this, I am very disappointed in the NLA (National Landlords Association) for promoting the Green Deal when it clearly is NOT beneficial to Landlords (unless someone can explain to me why it is). I note the NLA are about to launch an "NLA Green Deal" product which to my mind immediately taints their ability to be objective and genuinely look out for their members' interests.


    Grrr
    IANAL (I am not a lawyer). Anything I say here is just an opinion, so should not be relied upon! Always check your facts with a professional who really knows their onions.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grrr View Post
    I note the NLA are about to launch an "NLA Green Deal" product
    As hinted above, the Green Deal will mostly benefit those providing the financing and potentially those doing the improvement work as they might be able to sell more since the bill is 'hidden'.
    The NLA clearly has understood that.
    ⊂ Unsuitable for nut allergy sufferers ⊃

  6. #46

    Default

    Yep, no one will buy a property lumbered with some kind of "second charge", for energy efficiency improvements that are highly suspect.

    This parrot is dead, deceased, no more....

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JK0 View Post
    What's the betting the banks negotiate a get-out for these loan payments, the same as they have done for council tax?
    That's not really a valid comparison though, is it

    The bank gets no benefit from the CT tax that is (or isn't paid).

    They do get a benefit from the work done to the house that the loan has paid for

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    441

    Default

    the loan will be passed on to the new purchaser i imagine, same as council charges

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,864

    Default

    Question regarding the Landlord's Energy Savings Allowance:
    If a landlord does LESA qualified improvements through a Green Deal, could he still claim LESA on Green Deal payments that he incurs himself?
    ⊂ Unsuitable for nut allergy sufferers ⊃

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jjlandlord View Post
    Question regarding the Landlord's Energy Savings Allowance:
    If a landlord does LESA qualified improvements through a Green Deal, could he still claim LESA on Green Deal payments that he incurs himself?
    I'm told by the NLA that yes - a landlord can make use of both LESA and the Green Deal.
    IANAL (I am not a lawyer). Anything I say here is just an opinion, so should not be relied upon! Always check your facts with a professional who really knows their onions.

Similar Threads

  1. Green Deal & ECO
    By nforeman in forum Finance & Investment Questions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 30-10-2012, 21:43 PM
  2. Green Deal- energy efficiency- what effect on L?
    By Hampton in forum Energy Efficiency/EPC, Design, Repair, Improve
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-08-2012, 16:02 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •