Northern Rock nightmare

SquatNow

Bf109 wrote: »

Chloroform - although carbon tetrachloride works just as well......

But is harder to get hold of.

poppysarah

After 30 days of it being empty then it's uninsured. Then you're in the mess.

Why ar you not living in it?

Fergie73

You're being totally unreasonable. The bank lent you the money for the house, ie it's their money
and effectively their property until that debt is paid off.

No one is under any obligation to lend someone else money, and it's quite possible you'd find that if you were applying for this same mortgage for the first time right now you wouldn't get it. Certainly, without a very hefty deposit and a bigger rate, you wouldn't get a buy-to-let mortgage, as these are far more risky for lenders. NR is currently being funder by taxpayers and shouldn't be taking on risky loans.

If you - and doubtless thousands of their other mortgage holders - are now going to them saying they want to start renting their properties out, they are more than within their rights (and quite sensible) to be judging that customers may be in trouble. If you rent the property out, and you then stop paying (which they can't know you won't) they'd have a huge problem re-possessing and selling the property to get their money back, as there'd be tenents in.

I'm not sure why people feel they have an entitlement these days to as much debt as they want, and houses they're not living in. If you're not using it, sell it. If you really don't want to sell it, try and find a lender that'll give you a BTL mortgage, which is a different product to a homeowner mortgage, ie a business one.

WTF?_2

Marnie_M wrote: »

If you read the above, I am relocating to live with my partner who owns his house. I want to keep my house independently and it's fixed. So Einstein, you have jumped to all kinds of conclusions and been unnecessarily unpleasant and unhelpful. Maybe you should take some of the money you have saved and get a life and some English lessons.

Maybe you should read the terms of your mortgage.

You bought the house as a primary residence and the loan was made on those terms.

Now that you have decided to change the purpose of the home to a rental property, you are essentially running your own business and the loan is reassessed in that light.

Accordingly you will have to bring the LTV (Loan To Value) on the mortgage into line with that of a BTL mortgage. Hence the need to pay 37k or whatever to meet those conditions. As explained by another poster, this is because lenders judge you are more likely to default on the loan than you would be if the house was your own home.

This is all perfectly normal and in line with the way lenders operate.


I suggest you stop whining about it and make a decision about what you will do with the property. No amount of complaining is magically going to make the lender let you get away with radically changing the purpose of the house which you bought with their money.

BlondeHeadOn

I actually think that the OP is trying to act sensibly here, although a few other posters seem to be giving her grief! The way I see it is:

OP is in a new relationship, and wants to move in with boyfriend (or already has).
OP does not want to sell her own home yet - entirely sensible in my view, as (a) the relationship might not work out, and (b) it's a rubbish time to sell property anyway.
OP does not want to leave house empty - again, sensible in my view.
So OP wants to rent house out, to help pay mortgage and to make sure house is not left empty.

I think the only problem is the NR issue, but I think the most sensible suggestion so far has been from barnaby-bear:
"Why not rent your largest bedrooms out to lodgers under the rent a room scheme? Tax-deductable, still your official residence, more rights to reclaim the house and kick them out with little notice, can check up on them if you desire - they'll appreciate a landlady who spends 99% of her time round her boyfriends. Or why not rent his house out and him move in with you if he has a better LTV."

This seems to me excellent advice, and in fact I was the lodger under such an arrangement a few years back. My landlady had moved to flat in Bath but wanted to rent out her house in the south east to keep it as an investment and also in case her new relationship didn't work out. It suited me wonderfully - I had the house to myself 99% of the time, and no usual letting hoops to jump through. Just make sure that whoever you choose as a 'lodger' is trustworthy, and doesn't mind a more relaxed approach to letting.
My landlady eventually sold her house, and I stayed in it until the sale completed with a rent 'holiday' for dealing twith estate agents and the uncertainty etc. It was probably the best rental situation I ever had, and I was very sorry when it ended (after 2 years).

Good luck to the OP, whatever you decide to do!

barnaby-bear

BlondeHeadOn wrote: »

I actually think that the OP is trying to act sensibly here, although a few other posters seem to be giving her grief! The way I see it is:

OP is in a new relationship, and wants to move in with boyfriend (or already has).
OP does not want to sell her own home yet - entirely sensible in my view, as (a) the relationship might not work out, and (b) it's a rubbish time to sell property anyway.
OP does not want to leave house empty - again, sensible in my view.
So OP wants to rent house out, to help pay mortgage and to make sure house is not left empty.

I think the only problem is the NR issue, but I think the most sensible suggestion so far has been from barnaby-bear:
"Why not rent your largest bedrooms out to lodgers under the rent a room scheme? Tax-deductable, still your official residence, more rights to reclaim the house and kick them out with little notice, can check up on them if you desire - they'll appreciate a landlady who spends 99% of her time round her boyfriends. Or why not rent his house out and him move in with you if he has a better LTV."

This seems to me excellent advice, and in fact I was the lodger under such an arrangement a few years back. My landlady had moved to flat in Bath but wanted to rent out her house in the south east to keep it as an investment and also in case her new relationship didn't work out. It suited me wonderfully - I had the house to myself 99% of the time, and no usual letting hoops to jump through. Just make sure that whoever you choose as a 'lodger' is trustworthy, and doesn't mind a more relaxed approach to letting.
My landlady eventually sold her house, and I stayed in it until the sale completed with a rent 'holiday' for dealing twith estate agents and the uncertainty etc. It was probably the best rental situation I ever had, and I was very sorry when it ended (after 2 years).

Good luck to the OP, whatever you decide to do!

Thanks for the thanks.

I can see why the mortgage company is risk-adverse the OP can afford the mortgage because moving in rent free with the boyf, she wants to keep the house in case it doesn't work out, but if that happens there will be tenants in so she'll have to rent and be tied in herself to a 6 months min contract... now if the tenants don't want to go when she wants to move back or stop paying rent, or there's a rental void or the house gets flooded etc. etc... there are all types of scenario that could rapidly cause financial disaster for many and the OP is bundling themselves in that risk category hence the lenders changed criteria assessing the risk over the average person in this situation. If she really wants to keep the flat/house as a bolthole - moving into the box room and letting the lodgers have free reign (people will pay more for this set up than confined to a room allowed to use the kitchen between 6 and 7pm ) means she can go back at any time and they have little tenure.

Nicole_B

I sympathise with the OP as we are in exactly the same position.

We have a house which is mortgaged with Northern Rock, we had to move to the other side of the country due to my partners work commitments so we spoke to NR who said no problem and just fill in the consent to let.

So we did and thought nothing about it, one day before moving out we recive notice from NR saying they will not let us rent the house out for the same reasons as OP. :eek:

So the only thing we can do is leave the property empty, we are major negative equity, can't afford the fee's to chaneg mortgage lender so have a house which we have no idea what to do with.

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax

Marnie M, you say you are moving in with your partner who ownes his own house. If, by that, you mean he owns it outright with no mortgage, then use the Portability Option on your mortgage to move it onto his property.

Either that or simply rent the property out and change your insurance to a Landlords Insurance as Northern Rock can't even be bothered to ask to see peoples insurance policies.

huntersc

Why's everyone got so down on the OP? i don't see the problem.

To the OP, you're obviously in an annoying situation. Hopefully NR come through and are sensible about it and work to a compromise with you. If not then could your new partner perhaps live in your home and you could rent his out? It's probably not ideal but it might be a solution, at least for the time being.

I think most would and should advise against renting out without permission but in some situations it's something I would personally consider. But it is risky. It all depends if you're willing to take the risk, good luck.

dopester

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax wrote: »

Marnie M, you say you are moving in with your partner who ownes his own house. If, by that, you mean he owns it outright with no mortgage, then use the Portability Option on your mortgage to move it onto his property.

Now that would be true love. :smileyhea:love: :lovethoug