What do I do? I think I am totally screwed...

archie9uk

firesidemaid wrote: »

so, have you been renting it out?

i don't have any expertise i'm afraid. some lenders allow you to rent out on a residential mortgage, sometimes for a fee - others require you to have a BTL mortgage.

if you are renting it, do you have landlord's insurance? in theory you have to have your lender's permission to rent out.

Yes, I have been renting it out (although it is currently "to let"). Yes, I do have landlord's insurance. I have a rent indemnity / public liability insurance policy and the building's insurance is paid through the freeholder, with permission to let.

getmore4less

I would come clean but gather as much evidence as you can to back up what you say. The lender may be simpathetic and not try to rip you off with a new deal.

They may ask why you did not notice when you signed up for mortgage fort he flat that nothing had changed from your original application as you requested.

You could drag the FA back into this and give them some headaches and more work for messing up.

archie9uk

getmore4less wrote: »

I would come clean but gather as much evidence as you can to back up what you say. The lender may be simpathetic and not try to rip you off with a new deal.

They may ask why you did not notice when you signed up for mortgage fort he flat that nothing had changed from your original application as you requested.

You could drag the FA back into this and give them some headaches and more work for messing up.

I told the mortgage company the truth (i.e. that as far as I knew everything had been changed over) so I hope they will realise that I have not tried to deceive them or intentionally do anything that I shouldn't.

They didn't ask my why I didn't notice that nothing had changed, as I explained this over the phone to them last night. It was basically because a) the mortgage was applied for before I ever intended to let the flat, and b) I trusted the mortgage adviser to do what he said was doing and, with no experience of this sort of thing, I had no reason to doubt what he said. As far as I was aware, it was just being switched over - I had no idea that I would have had to make a new application for a BTL. I suppose you live and learn...

I will indeed be dragging the mortgage adviser back into this. I won't be letting him get away with lying to me. Then again, I fully expect him to have no recollection whatsoever of telling me he would switch the mortgage over. This is not the only time the same company has stuffed up big-time - that's why I stopped using them as letting agents.

VIGILANT22

Well done you for being honest...never ever use advisers from estate agencies...next time ask a friend to refer one....good luck

archie9uk

I rang the mortgage company again this morning to express my concern that I would not qualify for a buy-to-let mortgage, and (contrary to what they said last night) I was told that the form is not an application for buy-to-let but a "consent to let" form, which means I would be able to stay on the same residential mortgage. Hopefully, they will give consent and everything will be okay. If not, I'll be back to square one, but at least there is some light at the end of the tunnel.

archie9uk

VIGILANT22 wrote: »

Well done you for being honest...never ever use advisers from estate agencies...next time ask a friend to refer one....good luck

Thank you. Don't worry, I certainly won't be making the same mistake again! I wouldn't go near them with a barge pole!

Dan_1976

You know your broker cant just call you lender and change this. You need to do it??

Pincher

archie9uk wrote: »

I rang the mortgage company again this morning to express my concern that I would not qualify for a buy-to-let mortgage, and (contrary to what they said last night) I was told that the form is not an application for buy-to-let but a "consent to let" form, which means I would be able to stay on the same residential mortgage. Hopefully, they will give consent and everything will be okay. If not, I'll be back to square one, but at least there is some light at the end of the tunnel.

Plenty of people relocate, couldn't sell, and need to let. It's only a problem if the lender won't co-operate. Buy to Let typically has a higher interest rate, to reflect the supposed "higher risk", so you may be paying a higher rate than before.

As far as I'm concerned, the higher risk is non-sense, because if the tenant loses his job, you can get him out and put in one with a job, but if you lose your job, who's going to pay your residential mortgage? Also, the whole point of having a house as collateral means the lender can recoup his money by auction, unless he lent on 95% LTV.