Trapped by their own investment
We had fifteen properties. From the outside it looked like we had made it — people assumed we were thriving. The truth was the opposite. Almost every property was losing money, the mortgages were higher than the rents, and fourteen of the fifteen were in negative equity. We couldn’t sell. We couldn’t stop. Every month we were finding £15,000 just to stand still, and the only thing keeping us going was the fear of what would happen if we stopped.
The portfolio had been built with the right intentions but the numbers had turned against us. Rental income no longer covered the mortgage repayments on most of the properties. Repair costs were constant — some properties had been left badly damaged by tenants, others stood vacant, and the areas they were in meant the quality of tenants was poor enough that further damage was likely even after repairs. We were topping up mortgage payments from our own income every month, paying credit card bills, covering household costs, and setting aside money for income tax. Fifteen thousand pounds a month, just to keep things from collapsing.
What made it worse was the mindset we were trapped in. Our credit files were everything to us — they were the foundation of the mortgages, and we believed that protecting them was protecting our future. So we kept paying, kept juggling, kept presenting the picture that everything was fine. Then the Government changed the tax rules for buy-to-let landlords, and whatever margin we had left disappeared.
We tried to find help. We spoke to our mortgage adviser, who couldn’t offer a way through. His colleague, an independent financial adviser, was the same. Our accountant pointed us towards an insolvency practitioner — and while they were closer to understanding the problem, the solution they suggested was an IVA. That would only have dealt with the credit card debt; it didn’t touch the real problem, which was the cost of servicing the property portfolio. We left that meeting feeling there was no viable solution.
On top of everything else, our son’s savings were tied up in the portfolio. He had invested in our property journey and now his money was at risk along with ours. By the time we came to Lightside, we didn’t really hold out much hope. We were mentally and physically exhausted. We had spent years carrying a plan that had turned into a trap, tied to our day jobs simply to fund a portfolio that was draining us of everything.
The Outcome in brief
Adviser: Barry Mitchell · Priti Shah · Referral: Trident Property Ltd
George and Grace had carried the weight of their property portfolio for over seven years. What they feared most was not the debt itself but the exposure — to their peers, to their son whose savings were invested alongside theirs, and to a future in which they remained trapped servicing properties that would never recover. When the strategy was implemented and the loss-making properties were gone, what replaced the anxiety was not relief in the dramatic sense — it was the quieter realisation that they no longer had to generate £15,000 a month just to stand still. They had more money, more time, and for the first time in years, real financial freedom.
Is your property portfolio costing you more than it’s making?
If you’re a landlord subsidising loss-making properties from your own income, there may be a way through. The first conversation is free and completely confidential.
The work behind the outcome
Lightside devised and managed a strategy that disposed of fourteen loss-making properties through a coordinated managed repossession process, consolidated the resulting mortgage shortfalls and existing unsecured debts into a creditor arrangement with affordable repayments, and preserved both the couple’s home and their one equity-positive property in Camden — a property worth saving. The strategy increased the couple’s monthly cashflow and savings from the point of implementation and was managed by Lightside to ensure it was delivered to the level the clients wished to take it.
When we examined the situation comprehensively, the picture was stark. The rental income across the portfolio fell well short of the combined mortgage commitments, leaving the couple subsidising the properties from earned income every month. A property-by-property review revealed the full extent of the problem: several properties were vacant, others had sustained significant tenant damage requiring thousands of pounds in repairs, and the locations were such that the risk of repeat damage was high. Of fifteen properties, fourteen were in negative equity with no realistic prospect of recovery. Only one — a property in Camden — held meaningful equity and justified retention.
The plan required the couple to confront the one thing they had been trying hardest to avoid: the impact on their credit files. Fourteen properties had to be divested. Since they could not be sold — negative equity ruled that out — we undertook a managed repossession programme. This was not abandonment. The rent continued to be collected on each property until the lender took formal possession, at which point keys were handed to the lender’s agents. The process was controlled and sequenced so that tenants were not disrupted. As each property was repossessed, the mortgage shortfall crystallised as an unsecured debt. These shortfalls, together with the credit card balances that had accumulated while the couple maintained payments across the portfolio, were brought together and addressed through a creditor arrangement — an informal agreement with all unsecured creditors establishing affordable and sustainable monthly repayments. Negotiations were conducted across approximately ten institutions. Clear proposals, regular monitoring and follow-up, and verbal negotiations with mortgage lenders ensured that the repayments agreed were affordable and sustainable, mitigating any further legal action.
The Camden property was retained. The couple’s son, whose savings had been invested in the property portfolio, held a legitimate claim against them. We assisted him in obtaining a CCJ and an interim charging order against the Camden property — securing his position ahead of any unsecured creditor who might otherwise have done the same. The couple supported this. Their own home was never charged by any unsecured creditor, although this had been a real possibility.
The credit file impact lasted six years, but the couple had no use for it — they had no intention of taking on further mortgages or new credit. What they had instead was more money in their bank account each month and, more importantly, freedom from the portfolio that had consumed their lives for over seven years.
Lightside devised and managed a strategy that disposed of fourteen loss-making properties through a coordinated managed repossession process, consolidated the resulting mortgage shortfalls and existing unsecured debts into a creditor arrangement with affordable repayments, and preserved both the couple’s home and their one equity-positive property in Camden — a property worth saving. The strategy increased the couple’s monthly cashflow and savings from the point of implementation and was managed by Lightside to ensure it was delivered to the level the clients wished to take it.