E N

Hi again, I'm sorry but these two replies you have provided me with do not appear make sense when taken together. If 'taken out' and secured' mean the same thing and it is ok to claim tax relief on a mortgage secured against another property then how can it be necessary - or even possible - for that mortgage to be 'taken out against' ie 'secured' against the rented out property when it has already been secured against another property? I note that the guidance on this matter (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6419c3758fa8f547c7ffd689/SA105_Notes_2023.pdf) does not refer to a mortgage being either 'taken out' or 'secured', it simply refers to 'finance costs.' So I assume that if the 'finance costs' can be demonstrated to apply to the rented out property then it the precise details of the loan do not matter?

Also, do the same rules apply for a new mortgage entered into in order to keep a rental property that I already own? (ie is it ok to claim tax relief even if that mortgage is secured against a different property so long as it is clearly attributed to the rental property in question?).

Thanks, do you have definitions please of ‘taken out against’ and ‘secured’?

If a take out a new mortgage to acquire a rental property can I gain mortgage interest tax relief according to the usual rules even if the mortgage lending is secured against a different property that I also own?