Property TV | Property Question Time - S1 Ep 45 - Nova

Property TV | Property Question Time – S1 Ep 45

Our MD Paul Mahoney is on the Expert Panel  for Property Question Time which features on Property TV – Sky Channel 198. In this show the public ask property related questions to the panel of industry experts. The experts also provide “Golden Nuggets” or Pearls of Wisdom from their experience on what viewers should be aware of. In this episode they discuss Residential Mortgages, Buy-to-let mortgages and Advice on Property Investment. Watch Property Question Time on Property TV – Sky Channel 198. Click above to watch this week’s episode.

Jemma Forte:

Hello and welcome to the latest edition of Property Question Time with me, Jemma Forte. This is the show where you get to ask your property related questions to a panel of experts from the industry. So without further adieu, let me introduce you.

First up, we’ve got Tony Gimple, who is the co-founder of Less Tax for Landlords. Hello Tony.

Tony Gimple:

Hi Jemma.

Jemma Forte:

And then we have Paul Mahoney from Nova Financial and James Jenkins from Money Sprite. Welcome all of you. Okay. I’m going to jump straight into some questions, if that’s okay, cause that is after all what we’re here for.

So, Tony, starting with you. Somebody has written to us saying, “Looking at the rules about gifts, I see that you can give as many gifts of up to 250 pounds per person, as you want, during the tax year. As long as you haven’t used another exemption on the same person. Now can this be gifts of actually money? Is there any reason someone couldn’t do this once a month, say by standing order?” Now, just a bit more detail. To explain the situation, her father would like to gift 3,000 pounds a year to his two grandchildren, okay? Can he get around this limit by separately gifting me and my partner multiple 250 pounds, as indicated above. So Tony, what do you think?

Tony Gimple:

You can give away as much as you like if it comes from normal expenditure out of income.

Jemma Forte:

Okay. And is this related generally to inheritance tax?

Tony Gimple:

It is.

Jemma Forte:

Okay.

Tony Gimple:

It is. Anything we give away …

Jemma Forte:

Yeah.

Tony Gimple:

… during our lifetime is potentially exempt transfer. In other words, it stays in our estate for 4 whole years or 3 declining years for inheritance tax purposes.

Jemma Forte:

Okay.

Tony Gimple:

And there are certain amounts that you can give away totally free of tax. We each have what’s called the No [write 00:02:11] Band currently worth 325,000 pounds. And, if we own our own home and leave it to direct descendants, so 100,000 in this tax year, rising to a further 175,000 from that within the next two years or so.

So by the time we get to 2021, if you have your own home and are leaving it to direct descendants, you got a total of half a million pounds that you can give away free of inheritance tax.

Jemma Forte:

Okay.

Tony Gimple:

There’s no inheritance tax between spouses, or civil partners. In addition to that you have what are called annual exemptions, there’s a 3,000 pounds, 5,000 on the gift to children or marriage, etc. and an unlimited number of separate 250 pounds.

You could also give away anything from excess income without incurring either immediate charges to inheritance tax or without it being this potential exempt transfer. So for example, let’s say you’re earning 60,000 pounds a year after tax, you only have to spend 30,000 on maintaining your normal life, that other 30,000 can be given away without any inheritance tax consequences, providing it’s regular, you keep records of it, and in some circumstances that can also apply to saving saved income but not investment income.

Jemma Forte:

Okay, so in this person’s case they probably can give that money and do it in different 250 pound chunks to different individuals.

Tony Gimple:

But not to the same child or grandchildren without breaching that 3,000 pound limit.

Jemma Forte:

Okay, alright then. It is a bit of a mind field isn’t it, and of course something that people are increasingly concerned about. Okie, dokie, right.

Paul, let’s go to you now. So this person says, “I currently own my house with no mortgage, I don’t have a steady income for health reasons. I live in East Yorkshire.” It’s always good actually to get this for context, isn’t it. “My house is worth about 175,000. Now, I’ve got savings of around 20,000, but is there a way I could borrow 140,000 against my house to get two properties locally worth about 70,000 and rent them out to cover it all. So basically a buy to let mortgage with no income but use my house as collateral.”

Paul Mahoney:

Right. I think the main thing that needs to be clarified there would be how unsteady the income is.

Jemma Forte:

Well, they do say for health reasons that the income isn’t that steady.

Paul Mahoney:

So they’ve got a debt free home, unsteady income, and it looks like they’re looking to raise the money against the home, which would make it a residential mortgage rather than a buy to let mortgage. The main way that residential mortgages are serviced is through income-

Jemma Forte:

Of course, yeah.

Paul Mahoney:

So the barrier that they’ll probably run into there is the fact that they don’t have steady income and that most lenders will lend you four to five times your income, but they want you to have a steady income.

So depending on how steady it is will probably determine whether they can borrow or they can’t, and how much they can borrow.

Jemma Forte:

So if they just explained to the bank, “Look I will … If you lend me this I could have some income because I’d buy these properties.” That’s not gonna-

Paul Mahoney:

Probably in 2007 that might’ve worked.

Jemma Forte:

Right.

Paul Mahoney:

That doesn’t work anymore.

Jemma Forte:

Yeah, things have tightened up so much.

Paul Mahoney:

Yeah, so most lenders will want you to have three months of steady income if you’re employed or if you’re self employed one, two, or three years of accounts.

Jemma Forte:

Yes.

Paul Mahoney:

To give them comfort that you have that income to actually service the mortgage.

Jemma Forte:

And from the bank’s point of view is that because they’d be worrying, “Well your business idea might not work, it might not be valid…”

Paul Mahoney:

It’s just about being able to service the debt.

Jemma Forte:

Yeah.

Paul Mahoney:

You know, cause your income is the way that you do that. You know thinking outside the box a little bit, maybe getting a guarantor involved, or something like that might open up some options for them.

Jemma Forte:

Did you see how they’re thinking. They’re thinking, “Well I’ve got this capital sat there.” If you just had that as cash you’d be able to use it, but of course you can’t. Then if they’ve got health reasons, I can understand the reasoning of making that property work for them.

James Jenkins:

Well I think as Paul said, I think the key there is separating what they want to do with the money and where the money is secured now because they could, in theory, they can get buy to let mortgages on new properties without that steady income because that’s gonna be based on the rental income of the property. So, if they wanted mortgages on two of the properties, rent it out for those purposes, that’s not so much of an income, sorry on a personal income side of things cause lenders lend on that basis.

Jemma Forte:

Right.

James Jenkins:

The fact is the money they want to borrow to be able to give in the deposits is gonna be on a residential property and is going to be based on their income. So irrespective of what he wants to do with it, that’s not gonna be impacted by what he wants to do with it, if that helps.

On the income side of things that Paul mentioned, yeah, lenders want regular income, they want three months pay slips, if he’s employed, and it depends on how regular and what they’re doing. So if they’re saying they’re working a job here and there, that’s gonna be an issue. The only thing they could do is potentially if they’re getting government benefits maybe for the income, if they’re getting it for the illness, subject to that law equaling more than what his personal income is, you can use that to bolster up his income.

So there may be something. I’d say it sounds relatively unlikely from what the client, the guy’s saying, but speak to a financial advisor and see what he can come up with.

Jemma Forte:

And I guess these are the kind of conundrums that all three of you in your professional lives face when people come and they’re like, “What do I do?”

Okay, thank you for that. And James, a question for you. So this person says, “I live in a share of freehold flat with a mortgage and it’s in my sister’s name. The original mortgage agreement was with both of us. We remortgaged some years ago as it was cheaper for her to be the sole person on the mortgage. I was a student at the time. She subsequently moved out.”… Are you following?

James Jenkins:

I think so, yeah. Carry on.

Jemma Forte:

Some of these are like brain teasers. “And I’ve remained at the property since. When my sister moved out we didn’t inform the lender, and I’ve been paying the mortgage during this time. So we’re not in a position to fully pay the mortgage and intend to do this, but my questions are this should I have informed the mortgage company of this arrangement, what will happen if I informed them, will I be penalized or fined, what are the consequences of not having informed them?”

James Jenkins:

It’s quite a gray area question.

Jemma Forte:

Yeah, if the mortgage has been paid.

James Jenkins:

It comes down to whether the lender’s aware if the person living in the property is not the mortgage owner. So a bit weird because they bought the property together initially and had the mortgage together. And I’m sort of intrigued as why they would’ve come off that.

Jemma Forte:

Yeah that’s the bit I’m a bit confused about. Why change it?

James Jenkins:

Yeah, why you would’ve come off it. Now at that point because the client has lived at the property they’ve accrued rights on the property, they owned it. For them to sort of stay living there but removed from the mortgage, what should’ve happened at the time would be they would’ve signed a consent to mortgage form or did a consent to say they that they waive any rights on the property that they can stay there. So basically if the lender wants to repossess, they can kick this person out because there is that mortgage holder.

So it would be interesting to see if that was done first and foremost because actually if they signed a consent to mortgage therefore the lender is aware that that person is living there, whether the person’s got the mortgage or not is living there or not is kind of irrelevant. They’re aware that this person is living there.

The second part is most lenders will allow them to leave a family member living in the property subject to signing a consent to mortgage, as long as they haven’t signed up any … it’s not a tenancy agreement, it’s not under an AST agreement, and they’re not paying rent for that. So the fact they’re paying the mortgage is okay, but it’s not rent, and it’s not an AST, which would again give them rights as a tenant in the property.

If they’re selling the property now there’s no real reason to go backwards and explain what had happened I would’ve thought because it’s being sold and the mortgage is gonna be repaid. Yes, they should’ve told the lender that he was living there, but therefore if they know that he’s living there it’s not so relevant if the other one is living there or not, if that makes sense.

Jemma Forte:

Okay, okay.

James Jenkins:

As long as the lender knows who is living there and that their right as the lender to repossess is protected by the deed to consent.

Jemma Forte:

Yes, okay. So essentially it’s a bit of a sort of looking back, likes oops, should I have told them, am I gonna get into trouble now.

James Jenkins:

You should always communicate with your lender with anything that changes. So would it have been good practice? Yes, it would’ve been good practice. As long as they’ve done the consent and the lender, when they borrowed the money in the sister’s own name, was aware there was a third party gonna remain in the property, then this shouldn’t be too much of an issue. It’s whether it was done back then. But the main thing if it could be sold.

Jemma Forte:

Okay, is this gonna crop up when I start charging my kids rent to live with me. Which is, they’re 12 and 11, I’m thinking it’s quite soon.

Paul Mahoney:

That’s actually quite relevant in that once children are 17, is it? They do need to sign a consent to mortgage.

Jemma Forte:

Do they?

Paul Mahoney:

Consent to mortgage.

James Jenkins:

Consent to mortgage or different things.

Paul Mahoney:

To waive their rights to the property.

Jemma Forte:

Really, my kids could squat in my house and take it from me. I love that.

James Jenkins:

So if you don’t pay your mortgage they can’t get kicked out. And that’s a fact-

Jemma Forte:

Oh, really.

James Jenkins:

Unless you signed a consent to mortgage, yeah.

Jemma Forte:

Extraordinary stuff. Well, thank you. I’m going to be very worried about my kids, quite shrewd and you never know what they might be planning.

James Jenkins:

If they’re googling it already.

Jemma Forte:

Have you got anything to add, gentlemen, to what James was saying?

Tony Gimple:

I don’t think so, other than if circumstances do change seek professional advice. It doesn’t always end up with a bad result.

Jemma Forte:

No, and I think this is the thing is when you’re doing things like this with family, it’s so easy isn’t it to make arrangements amongst yourselves. Like, well I’ll cover that for a bit, or I’ll cover that, but actually you forget that if that was another individual it’d become much more formal.

James Jenkins:

I think that main thing is how it worked when he came off that mortgage, what was done legally then.

Jemma Forte:

Okay, alright. Well thank you so much and that’s it for this half of property question time, so join us for more wisdom and pearls of knowledge after this short break.

Hello and welcome to part two of property question time with me, Jemma forte and my three guests Tony Gimple, Paul Mahoney, and James Jenkins. Right. We are now going to dive in for a golden nugget. Now this is where you get a piece of advice that you’d pay thousands for, quite frankly, and you get it for free. Paul.

Paul Mahoney:

Well, I suppose knowing your limits when it comes to property investment, knowing what’s suitable for your skill set.

Jemma Forte:

Okay.

Paul Mahoney:

Increasingly I’m seeing people that are just sort of rushing into property development or renovation projects when it’s not something they’ve ever done before.

Jemma Forte:

Right.

Paul Mahoney:

They might watch Homes Under the Hammer, or they might attend a day long course where they see they can recycle their money really quickly and make 100 or 200% profits and it all looks really easy. But property development is a profession, it’s a business. It’s something that people do for years and years learning doing it for other people. And then maybe one day they’ll go out and do it for themselves. You don’t do a day long course and start doing brain surgery, you know.

Jemma Forte:

I hope not.

Paul Mahoney:

So I suppose respected actually what goes into that process and the skill sets that required. And I supposed if you’re a first time investor you should really be starting out very passively and building your knowledge and your skill set in that area. And then potentially building up from there, but not sort of chasing the hype of these massive returns that you can make overnight in something that you don’t really know anything about.

Jemma Forte:

I think you’re so right, and a lot of those programs, they’re not to blame because they sort of inspire people. But sometimes, as you say, suddenly you go, “I am a property developer.” Well, not necessarily, or it’s like anything though, isn’t it. I wouldn’t suddenly start a florist because I don’t know anything about flowers.

So yeah, that’s really good advice. And I think, yeah, so start gently and learn.

Paul Mahoney:

I think a lot of the success stories you that you hear there’s just as many failures. There’s probably even more failure stories that you don’t hear about.

Jemma Forte:

Yeah, and you do see some of those on property programs, don’t you. People suddenly are up to their eyes in this leaky terrible place, where they’re trying to do their DIY. Oh you’re like, “Oh that looks quite stressful.” Thank you, right.

We’re going to go to James now, and this person has written in to say, “I am right in the path of Ophelia,” so this is coming from overseas, “and it’s beginning to hit hard. If this is only the beginning then I can see there being a lot of damage. I’ve been told by a friend that home insurance won’t cover this as it’s a natural disaster.” So obviously we’ve had Ophelia now, that’s happened, but going forward if there were ever more hurricanes, this is a person in question, would their home insurance cover a natural disaster?

James Jenkins:

Okay, yeah home insurance policies will vary from provider to provider. Natural disaster are usually, when you talk about home insurance are sort of linked, or insurance terms, those are earthquakes, tornadoes, that sort of thing.

Jemma Forte:

What about floods?

James Jenkins:

Floods, and so there is potentially more prone to that. So people with a house on a fault line, for example. We’re lucky, we don’t have too many of those is the UK.

Jemma Forte:

No. It can get quite windy though can’t it?

James Jenkins:

It can. Now most insurers will cover storm and flood damage, I guess it depends what their records of claims are in the area. Have the previously had lots and lots of claims for it and therefore is that home prone to it.

Check the policy carefully for what it is gonna cover you for, storm and flood, or if it’s natural disasters. Most often insurers will pay out four things like one of-

Jemma Forte:

Trees falling on your house.

James Jenkins:

Trees falling on your house, lightning strike, that kind of thing. But they can sometimes use something the Act of God clause and they use that to kind of get out of it. It was an act of God, that’s not covered.

I think there was a story once, not too long ago, of a woman trying to sue God for $89,000 because had a lightning strike, failing to control the weather adequately apparently.

Paul Mahoney:

Did he show up?

James Jenkins:

I don’t know how he paid her, if I’m honest with you. I think he didn’t show up in court and they ruled in his favor.

But that said, yeah, it’s very, very important to just check the specific terms. And it comes down to when you buy that policy initially making sure you don’t go for the absolute cheapest one when you go online or wherever you’re going and well that’s cheaper than that one so it’s gonna do the same job. They don’t all do the same job. Make sure you get the policy right in the first instance.

Paul Mahoney:

The policies vary greatly. So understanding the policy that you have will answer that question really.

Jemma Forte:

Yeah, you see I’m gonna admit when I’m talking I get a bit bored and then I just go, “That one.” And I’m sure there’s other people like me as well, and I kind of wish sometimes it was a bit easier when it’s being explained. Sometimes there’s too much small print and tediancies and I just want to know what am I covered for.

James Jenkins:

You’re absolutely right. A lot of times people search on the internet. They’ll just treat every policy as all the same. The same with contracts, they’re all the same. Well not every insurance policy is different, and there is usually a reason why. Their cheapest there that’s 100 pound cheaper than everything is cheaper for that reason. And it’s likely to be due to their claims pay out record.

So it’s important as with every kind of insurance really is take proper advice about it, tell them what your concerns of, and then make sure they find the policy that’s right for what you’re concerned about.

Jemma Forte:

Thank you, James. Okay moving along to Paul, this person says, “I Want to buy a property to rent out as an investment. Why do I need a buy to let mortgage? Can’t I just get a normal mortgage and rent the rooms out?”

Paul Mahoney:

Okay. You could. You need to make sure that your lender would accept it.

Jemma Forte:

Would that be illegal.

Paul Mahoney:

It’s not illegal. You’d have to live there though. The residential mortgage is the property that you live in. It’s your primary place of residence. You can’t have two residential mortgages.

Jemma Forte:

Yeah, so they’re saying they want to rent it out as an investment, so that-

Paul Mahoney:

So if they’re not going to live there and they’re going to live elsewhere, then they need a buy to let mortgage. If anything buy to let mortgages are easier to get that residential mortgages, so I’m not quite sure why they’d prefer to have a residential one, but the answer would be just get a buy to let mortgage. It’s a buy to let property and that product is specific to that type of property.

Jemma Forte:

What would be the consequences of getting a normal residential mortgage and then you’ve got three people in who are putting money into your bank account as rent?

Paul Mahoney:

Well you can get consent to let. For example, if you own a home in a certain area and you move to another area to work there and you’re renting elsewhere, you can rent out your property with a residential mortgage so long as your lender allows it. Just essentially ask for their permission and they’ll generally give it to you.

Jemma Forte:

But say you didn’t, is that illegal?

Paul Mahoney:

Well, it would be breaking the terms of the mortgage. So technically they could recall the mortgage if they wanted to.

Jemma Forte:

Yeah, if they found out. It’s just not worth it, isn’t it.

Paul Mahoney:

No.

Jemma Forte:

Tony’s saying no.

Tony Gimple:

No.

Jemma Forte:

Okay, so get the correct mortgage for whatever it is that you’re doing. And as you say getting a residential mortgage is on your earnings isn’t it, and getting a buy to let mortgage is on the basis of the property.

Paul Mahoney:

Generally people try to do it the other way around, what they call a back door buy to let. Where someone will already own a home, they’ll buy a buy to let property that might be beyond their affordability range, and actually go and live there. And that’s something that lenders are really conscious of now.

Jemma Forte:

Oh, right.

Paul Mahoney:

And in fact lender will even look at where this buy to let is in proximity to your work. And if it’s closer to work than your current home, that’s something that will be a red flag. So you need to be a bit conscious of that.

Jemma Forte:

Oh, that’s interesting. I did not know that. Okay, they’re not stupid, are they? Eventually they find out everybody’s little-

James Jenkins:

Lenders are very, very hot these days on post completion checks. So doing things like elector role checks, just general checks on who is actually living on a property they’ve done a mortgage on. So, if you’ve got a buy to let mortgage where you’re showing up as living there, you’ve got problems. If you’ve got a residential mortgage where you’re not showing there, someone else is, you’ve got problems.

So the propositions are there. Residential works for residential, buy to let works for buy to let, and then you’re gonna be fine. If you want to rent it out, get a buy to let mortgage.

Paul Mahoney:

And lenders share information as well, so you might think-

Jemma Forte:

Do they?

Paul Mahoney:

-that you’re okay cause you’re not telling that particular lender something, but they might find that out from another lender.

Tony Gimple:

The system is sufficiently free, fair, competitive, and commercial. You don’t have to hide these kinds of silly things. There are plenty of people out there who will look at the business case, and if stacks up, very happy to lend you the money.

Jemma Forte:

I mean, partly, this is because banks got such a bad rep at one point didn’t they. So it’s not all just because they’re so wonderful, it’s because they need to now protect their reputations, don’t they. They need to make sure everything is legitimate.

Paul Mahoney:

There’s plenty of products that are fit for purpose.

Jemma Forte:

Yeah, yeah.

Paul Mahoney:

So you just use the one that works for your situation.

Tony Gimple:

You don’t have to game the system.

Jemma Forte:

Okay, I won’t then. Okay, thank you, right. Tony, a question for you. It’s a good one. You probably might all want to pitch in. “What does it take to run a professional property business?”

This is a bit interesting as it’s bit like going back to your golden nugget. There is a big difference, isn’t it, between very professional property business, and just somebody who thinks, “Oh I’ll have a go at that.”

Tony Gimple:

I think the key is making the decision that I’m going to run a business. I’m not going to be a landlord. I’m running a property business. And that’s how should run it on the same lines as any other business, TV company, professional practice, developer, corner shop, immaterial.

So you’ve got to look at how much you’re prepared to invest. What that money will buy, what return you’re looking for it, what is your raw material in this case renting property. Is it sustainable, is it a demand, all the things that any business would look at. The fact that you’re now owning property as opposed to selling glasses is exactly the same process.

Jemma Forte:

Yeah, yeah.

Tony Gimple:

People think it’s easy. Neither being a landlord nor running a professional business is easy. It’s damned hard work. They need to be able to accept they don’t know what they don’t know. They need to be prepared to pay for advice cause it’s a really broad subject. It’s not just being a landlord, you know being a property owner. It’s legals, financials, tax, maintenance, insurance, vetting.

Jemma Forte:

Yeah, whereas I think some people think it’s choosing a nice paint color for the front door.

Tony Gimple:

That’s part of it. Having the right brain, making it curb appeal, and making the place fit to live so somebody walks in and says, “Well, I want to live there.” That’s also part of the business, but not just.

Jemma Forte:

I am quite good at that bit, but I go to people like you for everything else.

Tony Gimple:

I think the bigger part of that question is really, really topical. From the first of October this year 17, and the prudential [inaudible 00:24:01] authority rules changed on buy to let mortgages. Effectively lenders are now looking at you as a business.

Jemma Forte:

Right.

Tony Gimple:

You’ve got to have a business plan.

Jemma Forte:

It gets more and more difficult to make money these days, doesn’t it.

Tony Gimple:

No.

Jemma Forte:

It’s less of it about and it’s more and more hard to make money.

Tony Gimple:

No, no, it’s not.

Jemma Forte:

No.

Tony Gimple:

No, it’s not. You’ve just got to be more determined, and do it the right way to start with as opposed to just taking a chance. Know what you want to achieve to start with and work that.

Jemma Forte:

Is that partly because there’s less affordable housing for people getting on the property ladder and they don’t want people who’ve already got property getting more property. They want to allow the lower end of society to try and get, or just normal people to get on the property ladder.

Tony Gimple:

It’s really not a class thing. That in part there is more demand for housing than there is supply. Our children leaving home, things like that.

Jemma Forte:

And it isn’t a class thing, absolutely not-

Paul Mahoney:

It’s got nothing to do with class.

Jemma Forte:

Across the board you could get … Everybody it’s difficult. I was listening on the radio the other day, there was a couple, they had worked really hard, and they had a cinch of their savings, very determined people put away every month, which a lot of people don’t do. And they’d saved up something like 15,000 pounds and you’re saying it’s so depressing. I just still don’t know when they’re getting a home, but that’s a lot of money to save. It’s a lot.

James Jenkins:

I think Tony’s point is right. And what you’re saying is the reason, or a lot of the regulations have come and changed is because that’s the kind of underlying thing to it, is we want to make that people aren’t buying lots of properties, and people who need them can buy them. But I think what it does with the regulation change with the PRA, and a lot more portfolio landlords is that actually there is still plenty of money you can make from doing it, but actually I think you’ll find there’s people now who are more determined, focused, and actually have the proper plan in front of them as how they’re gonna get there because the real quick returns for Mr. And Mrs. Smith playing at it, are kind of chipping away.

And once you’ve got sort of more properties, you’re starting to get harder and harder to get the finance cause you’re now portfolio lending. So you’ve really got to decide when you’re looking at it what kind of buy to let business is this going to be, and if it’s gonna be a proper business, then sit down and talk to people properly about the tax and so on and so forth. And then the money is still there to be made but properly I guess more longer term and more well planned than maybe what you could’ve done previously.

Paul Mahoney:

Being more and more professionalized, and I think that’s the big reason for a lot of these changes recently is that they don’t necessarily want people having a property here and there. Exactly what Tony said, people actually doing it properly. And to do it properly you do need to surround yourself with the right team.

Jemma Forte:

You certainly do, like I have today. So thank you so much to all of you. James Jenkins from Money Sprite, Paul Mahoney from Nova Financial, and of course Tony Gimple from Less Tax 4 Landlords. Thank you so much for watching, I’ll see you soon.

 

Property Question Time

Property TV | Property Question Time – S1 Ep158 Stephen Galpin, Joanna Leggett and Paul Mahoney
Property TV | Property Question Time – S1 Ep158 Stephen Galpin, Joanna Leggett and Paul Mahoney
read more
Property TV | Property Question Time – S1 Ep142 Paul Mahoney, Joanna Leggett and Tony Gimple
Property TV | Property Question Time – S1 Ep142 Paul Mahoney, Joanna Leggett and Tony Gimple
read more
Property TV | Property Question Time – S1 Ep125 Joanna Leggett, Stephen Galphin and Paul Mahoney
Property TV | Property Question Time – S1 Ep125 Joanna Leggett, Stephen Galphin and Paul Mahoney
read more
Property TV | Property Question Time – S1 Ep123 Joanna Leggett, Stephen Galphin and Paul Mahoney
Property TV | Property Question Time – S1 Ep123 Joanna Leggett, Stephen Galphin and Paul Mahoney
read more
Property TV | Property Question Time – S1 Ep103 Stefano Lucatello, Mary Anne Bowring and Paul Mahoney
Property TV | Property Question Time – S1 Ep103 Stefano Lucatello, Mary Anne Bowring and Paul Mahoney
read more
Want to be the first to know what’s going on in the world of property investment? Subscribe to our newsletter below.
Get in Touch

Book a complimentary property and/or finance consultation

back-to-top