Been refused consent to let by Halifax

grey_lady

"Since April 2009, lenders are required to send a letter to the property addressed to 'the ocupiers', informing everyone who is living at the property of the date of court hearing."

What court hearing? or are you talking about an imaginery court hearing? the one that might happen if the OP decided to stop paying her mortgage.

how did new_home_owner's post show a lack of comprehension about that? I thought he/she stated quite clearly that the bank will reposess if the mortgage isnt paid - what does a letter to the occupiers have to do with it?

VIGILANT22 - with respect and I dont want to get into an argument but I dont think it's new_home_owner who's not being clear in their understanding.

emmajayne1982

Hi everyone,

Here is the update:
Consent to let refused based on the face that my move was not necessary (I completely disagree with this).

They provide me with 2 options:
1. Get out a loan for £22k to get the mortgage down to less than 75%
2. If I can provide evidence that the house is on the market i.e. a HIP and advert etc. Her exact words were 'particulars of sale' then they will re-consider...

The first option is not an option! The second, possibly, is there anything stopping me putting it on the market for what I bought it for?

VIGILANT22

grey_lady wrote: »

"Since April 2009, lenders are required to send a letter to the property addressed to 'the ocupiers', informing everyone who is living at the property of the date of court hearing."

What court hearing? or are you talking about an imaginery court hearing? the one that might happen if the OP decided to stop paying her mortgage.

how did new_home_owner's post show a lack of comprehension about that? I thought he/she stated quite clearly that the bank will reposess if the mortgage isnt paid - what does a letter to the occupiers have to do with it?

VIGILANT22 - with respect and I dont want to get into an argument but I dont think it's new_home_owner who's not being clear in their understanding.[/QUOTE]

Oh how embarrassing for you...I cut and pasted from Shelter..how about foning Shelter up and telling them look here grey lady new homw owner know better......:rotfl::rotfl:doh dohhhhhhh


http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/eviction/repossession_by_a_landlords_lender


Just because you want to fit a square peg in a round hole...doh dohhhhhhh

Vincenzo

phlash wrote: »

I'm far as I'm concerned, they told you you could apply for consent when under the SVR you couldn't. Maybe, she could have been more forthcoming about likelyhood, but that is not mis-selling, but a question that could have been asked by the OP.

So your hunch that you probably weren't mis-sold is likely to be correct, and frankly a distraction from the issue in hand.

Sorry to labour the point but....

The OP advised the lender they wished to let the property and they were sold a residential mortgage! The product sold did not meet the needs of the borrower and therefore by definition, it has been missold.

It is entirely relevant to the situation, since the OP would have been free to remortgage elsewhere (on a BTL basis) without penalty before this product was sold.

VIGILANT22

emmajayne1982 wrote: »

Hi everyone,

Here is the update:
Consent to let refused based on the face that my move was not necessary (I completely disagree with this).

They provide me with 2 options:
1. Get out a loan for £22k to get the mortgage down to less than 75%
2. If I can provide evidence that the house is on the market i.e. a HIP and advert etc. Her exact words were 'particulars of sale' then they will re-consider...

The first option is not an option! The second, possibly, is there anything stopping me putting it on the market for what I bought it for?

You can sell for any amount you want, whether an estate agent would be prepared to market it at that is another story...properties sell if they are priced properly....Is it not an option yr partner raising the capital and doing a joint BTL?

VIGILANT22

Vincenzo wrote: »

Sorry to labour the point but....



It is entirely relevant to the situation, since the OP would have been free to remortgage elsewhere (on a BTL basis) without penalty before this product was sold.

No btl's available under 75% LTV on the open market, hence the reason the OP was requesting consent to let............

phlash

Vincenzo wrote: »

Sorry to labour the point but....

The OP advised the lender they wished to let the property and they were sold a residential mortgage! The product sold did not meet the needs of the borrower and therefore by definition, it has been missold.

It is entirely relevant to the situation, since the OP would have been free to remortgage elsewhere (on a BTL basis) without penalty before this product was sold.

They were told if they wanted to let the property from a residential mortgage, then the only way they could do it was to remortgage to the fixed residential, and when the time came that she wanted to move she would have to apply for consent. She was still living in the property when she remortgaged I believe, so residential is entirely correct.

She would not be able to mortgage elsewhere on a BTL basis, her LTV is not high enough. The only way she could do it is the way she is trying, unfortunately teh bank does not want to allow her, which is their right.

grey_lady

Would it be worth complaining on the grounds that that you felt you werent advised correctly at the time, and that you do plan to marry your partner therefore you do need a short term consent to let. Ask for it to be escalated and reconsidered.

phlash

Option 1 could work.....

Granted the £22k might be at a higher rate, but the amount you owe is still the same.

Convert the mortgage to Interest Only (assuming its capital repayment at the moment), and use the excess cash per month to pay down the £22k until its gone. At which point convert the IO mortgage back to repayment.

Although this probably scared you at first because you're being asked to take out a loan, the amount you owe people is still the same. i.e. Its either eg. £100k to bank via mortgage or £78k to bank via mortgage and £22k to another organisation.

happybroker

certainly worth an appeal based on the fact that your "significant other" is having to move.

Re an agent being willing to take the property on, they will, no doubt make a bit on the HIP anyway and if you're not pushing them to advertise in newspapers etc I don't see the issue. At the end of the day, it's a board up for them and a bit of free advertising.