Nationwide Mortgage - new fees and charges

Thrugelmir

Solent wrote: »

With respect, you don't know what you are talking about. There is no fundamental change to the contract - the existing contract specifically allows for letting with the permission of the lender, which I was given. The lender advanced the money to me on the basis that I could ask to let, which I did. The contract is the same, it is clear, and I have not breached it. Have you even read it? :think:

At the outset you applied for a residential mortgage to purchase a home. This is the basis on which the product was sold to you. If you now to intend to let the property on a long term commercial basis then the contract has been fundamentally changed. I didn't use the word breached, as the contract hasn't been. However N\W are within the terms of the contract to change the terms as they have been.

The Nationwide have the Mortgage works which deals with unregulated commercial lending. If you think that the rate increase on your mortgage is penal see what they charge for equivalent lending.

Vincenzo

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I didn't use the word breached, as the contract hasn't been.

Really? Post no.58??

Thrugelmir

Vincenzo wrote: »

Really? Post no.58??

My reponse was in reply to your comment regarding N\W's action. AS N\W could define "reasonable" to suit themselves. For example a 3 year time limit for letting. Which would not be considered "unreasonable".

Solent_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

... I didn't use the word breached, as the contract hasn't been...

With respect, that is exactly what you said:

unforntunately by not complying with the terms of the contract it is you that is in breach.

I think you should be quiet now.

Vincenzo

Thrugelmir wrote: »

My reponse was in reply to your comment regarding N\W's action. AS N\W could define "reasonable" to suit themselves. For example a 3 year time limit for letting. Which would not be considered "unreasonable".

It was in direct response to Solent, who you quoted in post no.58!

And for the last time they CANNOT define 'reasonable' as they wish. By including the term in the contract Nationwide must have a stated reason for withholding consent which cannot be arbitrary, foolish, unfair, illegal, or unethical.

Therefore it was not foolish or misinformed for people to take fixed rates for longer than the initial period of consent since they knew it would be renewed (which Nationwide have confirmed will continue to be the case).

Thrugelmir

I'll read with interest the N\W's response to your letter that you believe it unreasonable to amend the T&C's even though you are letting your property on a long term commercial basis. Maybe your would actually be better off saying nothing.

Thrugelmir

Vincenzo wrote: »

Therefore it was not foolish or misinformed for people to take fixed rates for longer than the initial period of consent since they knew it would be renewed (which Nationwide have confirmed will continue to be the case).

Thats precisely why "BTL" lending is unregulated. Its a commercial transaction at the risk of the borrower. The onus is the borrower to either be knowledable or seek professional advice. There is no consumer protection.

Yet you've borrowed money under a consumer regulated product for commercial purposes. The N\W is now charging for the services it needs to provide on an ongoing basis.

Its alternative would have had to have been raising rates to all borrowers.

Vincenzo

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Thats precisely why "BTL" lending is unregulated. Its a commercial transaction at the risk of the borrower. The onus is the borrower to either be knowledable or seek professional advice. There is no consumer protection.

Yet you've borrowed money under a consumer regulated product for commercial purposes. The N\W is now charging for the services it needs to provide on an ongoing basis.

Its alternative would have had to have been raising rates to all borrowers.

As I keep saying, I have no issue with the introduction of the charges provided borrowers are free to move their mortgage elsewhere without penalty.

It is Nationwide that created this whole situation NOT the borrowers. Don't be so naive to think that this is anything other than a exercise in raising funds required as a result of Nationwide's own mismanagement.

I did not borrow for commercial purposes. Like most on here, I had a residential mortgage, decided to let my property and was given consent to let within the terms of the contract. My consent expires after my fixed rate so the change is no big issue for me.

I am however concerned that this may be the beginning of a trend that extends to all mortgage borrowers.

PiggyBank01

Am I missing something but can anyone find any mention to a 3 year limit on the consent to let? As with most T&Cs it would appear they can do anything they want but I can`t find any reference to a time limit.

I`m approaching N/W asking them to appreciate how they have 'trapped' those on a fixed rate by suddenly setting this time limit and whether in these cases they`ll excuse the EPC charge for those wanting to move their mortgage.

Vincenzo

tombooth01 wrote: »

Am I missing something but can anyone find any mention to a 3 year limit on the consent to let? As with most T&Cs it would appear they can do anything they want but I can`t find any reference to a time limit.

I`m approaching N/W asking them to appreciate how they have 'trapped' those on a fixed rate by suddenly setting this time limit and whether in these cases they`ll excuse the EPC charge for those wanting to move their mortgage.

They are not removing consent after 3 years. The relevance of the 3 years is that they gave consent for a 3 year period and therefore will
not introduce the fees within that period, since there was no such fee at the time of consent. The fees would therefore apply in the next period of consent. Fair enough, assuming you are not tied in to a longer fixed term!

From some of the posts on here it sounds as though this was not always the case and consent was given without reference to a time limit. Is this your experience?