Difference between a mortgage and buy-to-let in UK
"Residential mortgages normally explicitly state that the property cannot be let without explicit permission, whereas BTL mortgages typically require that the property be let. There are other differences. Residential mortgages are regulated, which means that consumers have a degree of protection from mis-selling; most BTLs are not, as landlords are expected to know what they're doing. Affordability of residential mortgages are based on your income, since that is how you are going to pay for them. BTLs are (mostly) assessed based on the property's rental income, since it's that that will fund the mortgage. Finally, residential mortgages are typically done on a repayment basis, so that at the end of the term, you've paid off the entire loan, whereas BTLs are typically interest-only, on the assumption that you'll either sell the property, or remortgage, at the end of the term. (I've used words like ""typically"" a lot to give an overall picture of the differences. Obviously it's a bit more complicated than that, and there are exceptions to a lot of the above descriptions.)" In my experience buy-to-let mortgages charge a higher rate of interest than an personal residential mortgage.  They are regarded as a business enterprise and presumably the banks calculate that they carry a higher risk.  A bank would probably take action if the property on an ordinary mortgage was rented out, as you would be breaking their terms.  Policies could be rendered void.  The terms on an ordinary mortgage disallow renting out the property. Another factor that makes Buy to let more expensive is the risk involved. With a buy to let you are dependent on finding a tenant that will keep regular payments. if the property is left empty you need to finance the mortgage yourself putting you under financial strain and raising risk. Also as Chis mentioned they are regarded as a business enterprise, If the mortgage was to be taken by a business that would be very high risk for a bank as the business could dissolve leaving the bank out of pocket. Because of this it can be very difficult to get a buy to let through a business unless you are moving from a personal portfolio. For a regular mortgage these risks don't exist so this is reflected in lower interest repayments. It's because of these differences in risk that banks created buy to let so they can better manage those risks.
When I bought my own place, mortgage lenders worked on 3 x salary basis.  Admittedly that was joint salary - eg you and spouse could sum your salaries.   Relaxing this ratio is one of the reasons we are in the mess we are now. You are shrewd (my view) to realise that buying is better than renting.  But you also should consider the short term likely movement in house prices.  I think this could be down.  If prices continue to fall, buying gets easier the longer you wait. When house prices do hit rock bottom, and you are sure they have, then you can afford to take a gamble.  Lets face it, if prices are moving up, even if you lose your job and cannot pay, you can sell and you have potentially gained the increase in the period when it went up. Also remember that getting the mortgage is the easy bit.  Paying in the longer term is the really hard part of the deal. Cap rate includes any interest on the mortgage and not the repayments of the mortgage. Cap rate represents the net income which is the gross rent minus all costs, including the interest on the loan. Mortgage repayments form part of your cash flow calculations not your return calculations. ROI is a calculation which works out your net income over the initial investment you made, which is you downpayment plus costs and not the value of the property. "When you compare the costs of paying your current mortgage with the rental income from the flat, you're not really comparing like with like. Firstly, the mortgage payments are covering both interest and capital repayments, so some of the 8k is money that is adding to your net worth. Secondly, the value of the flat (130k) is much more than the outstanding mortgage (80k) so if you did sell the flat and pay off the mortgage, you'd have 50k left in cash that could be invested to provide an income. The right way to compare the two options is to look at the different costs in each scenario. Let's assume the bigger house will cost 425k as it makes the figures work out nicely. If you buy the bigger house with a bigger mortgage, you will need to borrow 50k more so will end up with a mortgage of 130k, and you will still have the 8k/year from the flat. Depending on your other income, you might have to pay tax on the 8k/year - e.g. at 40% if you're a higher-rate taxpayer, leaving you with 4.8k/year. If you sell the flat, you'll have no mortgage repayments to make and no income from the flat. You'll be able to exactly buy the new house outright with the 50k left over after you repay the mortgage, on top of your old house. You'd also have to pay some costs to sell the flat that you wouldn't have to with the bigger mortgage, but you'd save on the costs of getting a new mortgage. They probably aren't the same, but let's simplify and assume they are. If anything the costs of selling the flat are likely to be higher than the mortgage costs. Viewed like that, you should look at the actual costs to you of having a 130k mortgage, and how much of that would be interest. Given that you'll be remortgaging, at current mortgage rates, I'd expect interest would only be 2-3%, i.e around 2.5k - 4k, so significantly less than the income from the flat even after tax. The total payment would be more because of capital repayment, but you could easily afford the cashflow difference. You can vary the term of the mortgage to control how much the capital repayment is, and you should easily be able to get a 130k mortgage on a 425k house with a very good deal. So if your figure of 8k rent is accurate (considering void periods, costs of upkeep etc), then I think it easily makes sense to get the bigger house with the bigger mortgage. Given the tax impact (which was pointed out in a comment), a third strategy may be even better: keep the flat, but take out a mortgage on it in exchange for a reduced mortgage on your main house. The reason for doing it that way is that you get some tax relief on the mortgage costs on an investment property as long as the income from that property is higher than the costs, whereas you don't on your primary residence. The tax relief used to just be at the same tax rate you were paying on the rental income, i.e. you could subtract the mortgage costs from the rental income when calculating tax. It's gradually being reduced so it's just basic rate tax relief (20%) even if you pay higher-rate tax, but it still could save you some money. You'd need to look at the different mortgage costs carefully, as ""buy-to-let"" mortgages often have higher interest rates." Of course you don't need to take a mortgage - if you happen to have enough cash (or other assets) to pay your sister her share, or if she is willing to take it in installments over the next years. Mortgages are not needed to buy houses, but to pay for them - subtle difference. If you can pay - in whichever agreed way - without a mortgage, you won't need one. According to my wife who used to work in the industry, since an investment mortgage is more likely to fail (they are just riskier) there are higher loan to value requirements and higher interest rates. They are just different products for different situations. "Not sure why the downvote - seems like a fair question to me. Who owns a house and in what proportions can be totally separate from who is named on the mortgage.  There are two ways to do this - one way would be for you loan them the money  first under a separate contract, which you should have a solicitor draw up; then they buy the house themselves. The contract would state the terms for repayment of the loan, which could be e.g. no repayment due until the sale of the house at which point the original amount is returned plus interest equivalent to the growth in value of the house between purchase and sale (or whatever). You'd need to be clear about what happened if the house lost value or they ended up in a negative equity situation. The other option is where you are directly a party to the purchase of the house and are named as part owners on the deeds. Again the solicitor who is handling the house purchase for them would help with the paperwork. In either case you would need to clear this arrangement with the mortgage company to make sure they were OK with it.  To answer your specific questions in order: - Yes, they would still be eligible for the Help To Buy ISAs (assuming that is what you are referring to) even though you would not be - I'm not sure what ""penalty"" you are referring to. You'd have to pay tax on any income or capital gain you made from the deal. - No-one can say whether this is a good deal for you without knowing a great deal more about your individual circumstances (and even then, any such advice you would get on here is worth as much as you pay for it.... if in doubt, consult an IFA.)" I am in Australia, but I think the banks in the UK would use similar wrkings. Your options 1 and 2 are basically no. Why would the bank consider your wife to be paying you rent when you live together. These are the type of practices that led to the GFC, and since then practices have been tightened. Regarding option 3, yes banks do take into consideration rent in their analysis of your loan. However, they would not include the full rent in their calculations, but about 70% to 75% of the full rent. This allows for loss of rent during vacant periods and adds a safety factor in their caluclations. But they will not include the rent itself, you would have to have other income as well to support your loan. Saying that, we do have Low Doc Loans in Australia (loans with little documentation required to get a loan). With these loans you basically have to make a declaration that you are telling the truth regarding your income sources and you can only usually borrow a lower LVR as these loans are seen as a bigger risk. These type of loans have also been tightened up since the GFC. NO Even worse, most BTL(buy to let) lenders will not lend if you are going to be living in the property.    There are very few lenders that will touch something like this.    It is likely you will also need to use bridging for the time the building work takes at something like 1.5% per month! Try posting the question to http://www.propertytribes.com/ as there are a few UK mortgage experts on that site. Risk. A shorter-term mortgage is less risky than a long-term mortgage - in this case there's half the chance of something bad happening because there's half the time allotted (15 vs 30 years). Bad things include you going bankrupt, massive inflation, or your home being destroyed in a meteor impact that your insurer won't cover. They entice consumers to these less risky mortgages by offering a lower interest rate. One lender's explanation of getting permission to rent out.  The implication is that it is straightforward with a 1% extra interest to pay.  However, there is no guarantee that permission would be given, so there might be a risk. http://www.nationwide.co.uk/support/support-articles/manage-your-account/letting-your-property/letting-your-property-overview Definitely renting out a property with a residential mortgage is not a good idea. The advantage of having a mortgage rather than borrowing money in other ways is that it is cheaper because the loan is secured against the value of the property.  If you stop paying then the bank take the house and can sell it keeping what they are owed and returning any excess. If you have enough money to pay it off then you do not need the mortgage.  They normally run for 25 years.  It is a lovely day when finally you realise that you own the whole house and no longer owe anything to the bank and the charge against the house is removed and the record of it removed from the land registry.   When you sell a house with a mortgage the buyer has to check that the bank has been paid off before they accept the property. Impossible to say without knowing more about your situation. Most likely you won't be able to secure a loan for money that you're just going to spend - getting a loan for property is easier because the bank owns the thing that you buy until you pay it back. Personal loans are typically more expensive (have higher interest) than mortgages, because they are not backed by an immovable asset. So you should reconsider the decision to not want a mortgage; it would be cheaper. Aside from that, once you get a personal loan, you are free to do with it whatever you want; this includes sending it to your parents, buying something, gambling it away in Vegas, or take out cash and burn it. So, yes, you can. Sending money from the UK to other EU countries should be easy and simple, once it is in your account, your bank can help you to make the transfer. I assume you understand that if your parents walk away with the money, you are left holding the bag. You are taking the full risk, and you will have to pay it back. "No. Rural Scotland has exactly the same monetary system, and not the same bubble. Monaco (the other example given) doesn't even have its own monetary system but uses the Euro. Look instead to the common factor: a lot of demand for limited real estate. Turning towards the personal finance part of it, we know from experience that housing bubbles may ""burst"" and housing prices may drop suddenly by ~30%, sometimes more. This is a financial risk if you must sell. Yet on the other hand, the fundamental force that keeps prices in London higher than average isn't going away. The long-term risk often is manageable. A 30% drop isn't so bad if you own a house for 30 years." You should be aware that many pubs in the London (indeed, the UK as a whole) are sold as a leasehold with a beer tie. This typically means you pay less rent for the building and premises, but must enter a contract with the Pub Company to buy their beer and day-to-day supplies. You have the legal option to instead pay market rent for some (but not all) Pub Cos, under certain conditions. If you go with leasehold, the landlord can usually close your pub at their will. This is becoming a quite common occurrence in the booming real estate market of London. While your interest will be in running a pub, the Pub Co's interest will be in getting change of use planning permission and selling it to a real estate developer.