Been refused consent to let by Halifax

Thrugelmir

jessicar wrote: »

I think that somebody deciding whether a move is by 'choice' or 'necessity' is fairly subjective. What guidelines are they actually using to make that decision?

I would query their interpretation.

In my case, I wanted to claim for a personal laptop which had been damaged in my home. And they wanted to reject the claim because, in answer to their question, I said that on a rare occasion I checked my work emails on it. They then classed it as a 'business laptop' and refused to cover it.

I argued that it was a personal laptop as it was entirely my own, my work never paid a penny towards it, and 99.99% of the time it was purely for personal use.

They agreed that they'd been overly zealous in their interpretation of the rules. Their complaints manager said the term was fairly subjective, they backed down and paid out.

My view is that where terms are subjective (in this case, define what constitutes a 'choice' or 'necessity' when having to move house), you do have a chance when you appeal.

That's a different scenario to not wishing to sell a property for ones own reasons.

The OP is effectively requesting a total change of relationship with her lender.

In the current economic climate the lender will have to evaluate the risk carefully. Without a comfort zone in the LTV the lender may well feel that the downside outweighs the upside for them.

Remember lenders need to downsize their loan books over time. So will be looking closely at who they lend to.

jessicar

VIGILANT22 wrote: »

Complain about what, that she wants to break the Terms & Conditions (ie let out) and they won't grant permission....rolls eyes....Your choice!...just remind yourself of the 90% loan and the 1st Charge held by Halifax!....If you can't be helpful don't post "ridiculous" posts..........

It's not a matter of 'breaking' terms and conditions, it's clarification of their interpretation of them. If they're saying they would grant permission if the move was necessary, then what is their definition of 'necessary'?

I would hardly classify your contribution to this thread as being helpful to the OP.

VIGILANT22

jessicar wrote: »

It's not a matter of 'breaking' terms and conditions, it's clarification of their interpretation of them. If they're saying they would grant permission if the move was necessary, then what is their definition of 'necessary'?

I would hardly classify your contribution to this thread as being helpful to the OP.

Please understand the term ...residential mortgage...yes..this is where you reside.....consent to let...means you lease to a tenant....couldn't be any bl***y clearer.............doh!

jessicar

Thrugelmir wrote: »

That's a different scenario to not wishing to sell a property for ones own reasons.

Of course it is - it was just an illustration that certain terms and conditions are open to interpretation, and if she feels that Halifax's interpretation of whether her move is 'necessary' is wrong in this case, then she may be able to appeal.

Thrugelmir

jessicar wrote: »

Of course it is - it was just an illustration that certain terms and conditions are open to interpretation, and if she feels that Halifax's interpretation of whether her move is 'necessary' is wrong in this case, then she may be able to appeal.

The move isn't actually the issue.

The OP is looking to rent out the property to cover the mortgage cost. So this is a contractual change which wouldn't have formed part of the original T&C's. Remember the OP accepted the T&C's as offered by the lender for the mortgage. The OP cannot now dictate terms to the lender to suit their circumstances as they change.

You quoted insurance as an example. If you wish to add another driver to your motor policy. Then the insurer advises you of the terms they are willing to offer. You can accept or decline them. There is no right of appeal if you don't like them.

jessicar

VIGILANT22 wrote: »

Please understand the term ...residential mortgage...yes..this is where you reside.....consent to let...means you lease to a tenant....couldn't be any bl***y clearer.............doh!

You're arguing something totally different - but then the point was fairly subtle and it seems to have totally escaped you.

There are plenty of people with residential mortgages who are given permission to let to a tenant. My neighbour has a residential mortgage with Nationwide and she owes more than 75% of the property. However, she's happily in Australia at the moment and they haven't charged her anything extra or changed her mortgage and say they won't for the first two years.

I've also contemplated working abroad for a couple of years and have been given permission to rent out my house if I want to without any increase to my mortgage rate or change to the residential nature of my mortgage, but then my mortgage is almost paid off.

In this case, the OP has said that the Halifax would allow it if they deemed her move to be 'necessary' but they don't think it is. She feels that it is necessary and some people on here would probably agree.

VIGILANT22

aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrghhhhhhh!! where are they coming from!

jessicar

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The move isn't actually the issue.

The OP is looking to rent out the property to cover the mortgage cost. So this is a contractual change which wouldn't have formed part of the original T&C's. Remember the OP accepted the T&C's as offered by the lender for the mortgage. The OP cannot now dictate terms to the lender to suit their circumstances as they change.

You quoted insurance as an example. If you wish to add another driver to your motor policy. Then the insurer advises you of the terms they are willing to offer. You can accept or decline them. There is no right of appeal if you don't like them.

I'm not disagreeing with you. The OP accepted terms, and I'm not saying she should be able to dictate them when her circumstances change.

My advice to her was to think about going with the loan, and think twice about letting her house out when her equity levels are so low.

However, in this case, there are circumstances where her mortgage provider will agree to her letting the property out (e.g if she puts it up for sale or if they feel the move was necessary), so if she feels that the person who dealt with her case is wrong in saying that her current circumstances don't fit that criteria, then she has the perfect right as their customer to challenge it, and ask somebody with more authority to review their decision.

new_home_owner_3

A group of geese on the ground is a gaggle, a group of geese in the air is a skein!

_Andy_

_Andy_ wrote: »

Group hug if we hit 14 pages by midnight

Nearly there guys