Been refused consent to let by Halifax

happybroker

I never, ever, in a millions years thought that this rubbish could have been stretched out to 14 pages so congratulations have to be due to the people that have absolutely nothing better to do than spout garbage fo finding something like this to fill their pointless lives with............the interweb may take off yet!

emmajayne1982

Thrugelmir wrote: »

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.

You are probably all going to shoot me down for this but when you talk about the current climate and the lender evaluating risk surely the risk of me defaulting on my mortgage payments is hight without tennants in the property?
I am paying out for rent in my new house as well as my mortgage?


jessicar - thank you for your helpful posts - could you just elaborate on why you think not renting is a good idea with the equity levels in the property? My understanding is that if I wait a little while to sell then I may be able to get back the £22k that I invested in the property in the first place.

I called a 5 local estate agents yesterday and they all made a guess valuation at £9 - 12k above what the Halifax index valuation is - that seems really unfair to me?

phlash

new_home_owner wrote: »

Look i may not have gained any kudos, i state facts and i back it up with evidence of real life experiances, you base yours on what people tell you happens not what actually does happen.

you might feel good about doing this but most people would like to see the hard facts, and i havent seen any from you.

Now the disagreement was i said i had never heard of anyone getting their home reposessed for not getting consent to let, you said they did.

I said yes its down in the terms and conditions and on the shelter website it may happen if your landlord doesnt pay their mortgage, but i also said i have never heard of any cases of it happening, just on the basis of not getting consent.

This was when i asked you if you could provide any evidence of the things you say happen and you began to stutter and went very quiet.

Now like i said earlier we all know its illegal to throw litter in the street and potentially you could get locked up for throwing a cigarette nub on the floor, but the chances of this happening are very low and im sure if you search google you will find no cases of people being locked up for throwing a cigarette nub.

Like wise it might not be right to get consent to let before renting your house out, but the chances of it being reposessed are about the same has being locked up for throwing a cigarette nub in the street.

the end

The problem with your whole theory is that you believe the only risk is being repossesed.......very short sighted. You still fail to address the insurance point, now made for the SIXTH time. (I have 4 more pages to catch up on, I doubt I've heard the last from you!)

madeupname1

emmajayne1982 wrote: »

I called a 5 local estate agents yesterday and they all made a guess valuation at £9 - 12k above what the Halifax index valuation is - that seems really unfair to me?

Unfortunately it isn't, but the mortgage lender has no incentive to value your property at the highest possible price. The purpose of the valuation from their perspective, is to see how much they could get for the property should they need to sell because you have defaulted on your mortgage. Usually that means a quick sale, and a quick sale usually means a lower price. I am actually surprised that the differential is actually only 12k ...

phlash

emmajayne1982 wrote: »

You are probably all going to shoot me down for this but when you talk about the current climate and the lender evaluating risk surely the risk of me defaulting on my mortgage payments is hight without tennants in the property?
I am paying out for rent in my new house as well as my mortgage?


jessicar - thank you for your helpful posts - could you just elaborate on why you think not renting is a good idea with the equity levels in the property? My understanding is that if I wait a little while to sell then I may be able to get back the £22k that I invested in the property in the first place.

I called a 5 local estate agents yesterday and they all made a guess valuation at £9 - 12k above what the Halifax index valuation is - that seems really unfair to me?

I'm interested why you believe you think that if you wait a little while you may be able to get your £22k back?

I don't think you will see such strength/recovery in the short term....see a quote from a post I made a couple months ago....

"Some key reasons why I think house prices are not going to rush off anywhere:

Biased data - Recent house rice rises have been based on very low transaction volumes. If you look at how they have been bought, it is with a large deposit (i.e. spare cash has been soaked up). These types of purchases have, on the whole, been of larger/better quality houses - naturally more expensive. With a lower volume of sales, this trend distorts the average, hence you get monthly price rises. However, your basic bread and butter housing is still selling at depressed prices, if selling at all, because the likely purchasers are struggling to get credit, next point.

Lending - 'Normal' purchases have smaller deposits and rely heavily on bank lending. The banks still have no appetite for lending on property. They do need to 'repair' their balance sheets, and at the moment the banks are not sold on turning the credit taps on.

Debt levels - There is no need to over egg this point, we are all fully aware there is a lot of debt. But, it is MASSIVE, and it could get more expensive for the UK if their credit rating is lowered. Yes, that means more tax on us, in order to pay the interest on the money the UK government has borrowed. More tax = less spending power.

Public sector cuts - The UK economy is highly dependant on the public sector. Any cuts to the public sector greatly affect the UK economy. There is no need to prove the relationship between economic output and house prices, this is straightforward and well documented. Public sector cuts will be large after the election, they have to be because of the huge debt levels the UK has.

UK bubble - The UK housing boom, saw one of the biggest growths out of all the developed countries. Other countries, with much smaller bubbles (the US) have reacted downwards far more aggressively. Our leading indicators therefore put us standing on a pretty crumbly and rocky edge, certainly not built on solid foundations.

Interest rates & fiscal stimulation - A 0.5% base rate is incredibly low, lets not forget this. The government has printed billions of pounds in order to sure up the economy. This is not real money, it was simply printed (well pumped electronically). Even with such drastic action, the UK economy posted just a 0.1% growth in GDP, this was a tragic result for such unprecedented action. It is a sure sign that the 'recovery' is to be a long and sluggish affair. Post election, we may begin to see more of this unfold. To that effect, house prices are directly related to the economy and could perform very badly.

Wages - In order for house prices to rise, you need wage inflation. There is none. Lenders will not return to the lending criteria in the 'good years' and therefore house prices will be naturally depressed by a cap on lending multiples. If this is capped and earnings are not increasing, then prices cannot sustainably rise, as the market is heavily dependent on mortgage borrowing, and mr and mrs average do not have the cash to purchase without borrowing.

Enough for now, this is far longer than intended."

silvercar

phlash wrote: »

The problem with your whole theory is that you believe the only risk is being repossesed.......very short sighted. You still fail to address the insurance point, now made for the SIXTH time. (I have 4 more pages to catch up on, I doubt I've heard the last from you!)

The insurance point is straightforward, though some on here like to scaremonger.

Leasehold properties (generally flats and some maisonettes)
(There is confusion between owners of flats who are technically tenants of the freeholder on long leases, so I've used freeholder, leaseholder and tenant terms - the leaseholder being thought of as the owner usually on a 99 or even 999 year lease and tenant being the short term tenant on an AST)


Building insurance is provided by the freeholder and usually paid through the service charge. The freeholder would need to consent to the property being tenanted so that they can inform and get agreement from insurers. This should be written into the lease.

Contents insurance is down to the individual leaseholder. A leaseholder intending to let the property will need to have contents insurance that allows for tenants. If they didn't, they would be liable for damage that could be attributed to the tenant; this is because insurers deem that people are more responsible with their own property than with others and so the risk is greater.

Without the correct insurance an insurer would not pay out for anything that could be attributed to the tenant, but would pay out for things that are not connected to the property being tenanted. With the correct insurance, the insurer would only be insuring the leaseholders property and the parts of the building they are responsible for (sanitary ware for example). Tenants should be advised to take their own insurance for their contents and landlord's property that they are responsible for.

Freehold property (usually houses)

The building and contents insurance is down to the owner. If you let the property you need insurance that covers the property being tenanted. You would then be covered for damage that could be attributed to the property being tenanted (including legal liability to the tenant). Without the correct insurance you would be covered for things that have no connection to the property being tenanted eg subsidence, but you could have claims reduced if you didn't notify or deal with problems in a timely manner because you weren't at the property. eg if you lived in a property you would be expected to notice movement in a wall, a tenant may not notify you of this and if you insured as owner occupier the insurer may suggest that the remedial work costs more because the problem had been allowed to worsen. Without the correct insurance you would have no cover if the tenant was injured in an accident caused by something in the property. Landlord insurance would cover this. Also if the tenant wrecked the place, without landlord insurance you would face the cost of repair yourself.

new_home_owner_3

silvercar wrote: »

The insurance point is straightforward, though some on here like to scaremonger.

Leasehold properties (generally flats and some maisonettes)
(There is confusion between owners of flats who are technically tenants of the freeholder on long leases, so I've used freeholder, leaseholder and tenant terms - the leaseholder being thought of as the owner usually on a 99 or even 999 year lease and tenant being the short term tenant on an AST)


Building insurance is provided by the freeholder and usually paid through the service charge. The freeholder would need to consent to the property being tenanted so that they can inform and get agreement from insurers. This should be written into the lease.

Contents insurance is down to the individual leaseholder. A leaseholder intending to let the property will need to have contents insurance that allows for tenants. If they didn't, they would be liable for damage that could be attributed to the tenant; this is because insurers deem that people are more responsible with their own property than with others and so the risk is greater.

Without the correct insurance an insurer would not pay out for anything that could be attributed to the tenant, but would pay out for things that are not connected to the property being tenanted. With the correct insurance, the insurer would only be insuring the leaseholders property and the parts of the building they are responsible for (sanitary ware for example). Tenants should be advised to take their own insurance for their contents and landlord's property that they are responsible for.

Freehold property (usually houses)

The building and contents insurance is down to the owner. If you let the property you need insurance that covers the property being tenanted. You would then be covered for damage that could be attributed to the property being tenanted (including legal liability to the tenant). Without the correct insurance you would be covered for things that have no connection to the property being tenanted eg subsidence, but you could have claims reduced if you didn't notify or deal with problems in a timely manner because you weren't at the property. eg if you lived in a property you would be expected to notice movement in a wall, a tenant may not notify you of this and if you insured as owner occupier the insurer may suggest that the remedial work costs more because the problem had been allowed to worsen. Without the correct insurance you would have no cover if the tenant was injured in an accident caused by something in the property. Landlord insurance would cover this. Also if the tenant wrecked the place, without landlord insurance you would face the cost of repair yourself.

So basically if your house/flat is leasehold you would have to check the leaseholders insurance, but if its freehold its down to the owner to make sure they have got the right insurance?

so all the scaremongering from thrugmuler,phlash and VIGILANT waffling on about not being insured would probably not be the case 9 times out 10 if the mortgage owner makes sure they are covered, whether they have consent to let or not.

cheers silvercar

new_home_owner_3

phlash wrote: »

Enough for now, this is far longer than intended."

Its too long, and you are very boring, thats why i only read the last bit.:p

_Andy_

new_home_owner wrote: »

Its too long

All the girls say that to me

new_home_owner_3

emmajayne1982 wrote: »

You are probably all going to shoot me down for this but when you talk about the current climate and the lender evaluating risk surely the risk of me defaulting on my mortgage payments is hight without tennants in the property?
I am paying out for rent in my new house as well as my mortgage?


I called a 5 local estate agents yesterday and they all made a guess valuation at £9 - 12k above what the Halifax index valuation is - that seems really unfair to me?

They will try and make it as hard as they can for you to rent, theyre not bothered really has long as they get the mortgage paid, and the safest bet for them is for you to stay and pay your way.


However if you want to rent they will give you a low valuation and then try and sell you different products, because you dont have any equity.

The banks are bent, interest rates are the lowest they have been for years and the greedy banks are raisng their svrs' by 3.5% and a lot of them wont give a rate below 5 percent unless you have a 40 percent deposit,, tell me when ever svr mortgage rates have been 4 percent above the bank of enngland base rate?

There just scraping it all back and we has the consumers are copping it one way or the other.

3 years ago this lady would have had no issue getting consent to let, now because the banks invested wrongly we are all paying the price.