Opportunity to move to oz but mortgage company wont allow me to let property

hcb42

My sister emigrated to australia last year and let out her property in the UK. I am 100% certain she is with First direct, as she has recommended them to me in the past. She also bought this particular property when living overseas elsewhere, although it was not let at the time, and she did intend to return and live in it.

GMS

socrates wrote: »

What change of policy?

I go to a broker and tell him I want a NEW policy - a Landlords Policy - are you telling me that insurance company contact the lender?

Why are you not covered - the policy is specifically for rentals

Are you trying to drum up business for yourself?

If the lender is noted on a policy and it lapses they will be informed so as to insure the property on their own insurance and charge the premium to the client, or ensure that a sufficient policy is in place elsewhere.

A landlord policy is specifically for rentals but if consent to let has been refused it will be void.

If teh lender become aware of a landlord policy when they know consent to let has not been granted then the mortgage will have breached its T & C's.

Drumming up business no. If people want to ask me for advice then they are welcome to do so. Contributing for free yes. If somebody chooses to ignore it then no problem whatsoever.

socrates

GMS wrote: »

If the lender is noted on a policy and it lapses they will be informed so as to insure the property on their own insurance and charge the premium to the client, or ensure that a sufficient policy is in place elsewhere.

A landlord policy is specifically for rentals but if consent to let has been refused it will be void.

If teh lender become aware of a landlord policy when they know consent to let has not been granted then the mortgage will have breached its T & C's.

Drumming up business no. If people want to ask me for advice then they are welcome to do so. Contributing for free yes. If somebody chooses to ignore it then no problem whatsoever.

All sounds good but totally untrue.

Firstly IF a lender is noted - what happens if it is not.

Are you sure you are not confusing leasehold properties with Freehold?

Mortgage Company becomes aware - whats the worst they can do - put the rate up? Call the mortgage in?

Putting the rate up means they are then giving consent to let.

Call the mortgage in? - When has there even been a thread about that on here?

When an insurance company takes on a property under a LL's policy unless it specifically says so in their terms and conditions that they need to see CTL then how can they turn round afterwards and say the policy is void?

I spoke to a insurance broker friend of mine today - he agreed with me - a lot of scare mongering.

GMS

Leasehold or Freehold is irrelevant.

Lenders will require sight of insurance policies upon completion or remortgage, or a solicitor will be required to ensure it under CML rules.

A residential mortgage is specifially not for letting. THis is in the T&C's of the mortgage and agreed to by the mortgagor when signing the deed.

Breach of T&C's can lead to action by the lender. What that is is down to them but putting up a rate would not mean granting CTL automatically.

Why risk any action? Better to have it all done properly prior to flying halfway round the world surely?

socrates

GMS wrote: »

Leasehold or Freehold is irrelevant.

Lenders will require sight of insurance policies upon completion or remortgage, or a solicitor will be required to ensure it under CML rules.

The OP is not remortgaging or completing a mortgage - you keep cutting the cloth to fit your argument.

Things change and circumstances change - I had shares in Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley - where are they now?

The banks are making their money back ten-fold and as legislation has been put in place to protect tenants - who are being evicted as a result of their LL's property being repossessed - due to non payment of the mortgage - not for not having CTL - then what excuse does a bank have for not granting CTL - if and only if there is a dramatic change of circumstances. Job abroad, redundancy, serious illness, death etc.

I do not condone people getting a residential mortgage knowing they are going to rent it out in a couple of months. Thats a completely different story.

Once the banks started to move the goal posts - then so should the general public.

FD are completely inflexible - I have been with them for 20 years and they treat every customer as if they have been with them for 5 minutes.

Thrugelmir

socrates wrote: »

Things change and circumstances change - I had shares in Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley - where are they now?


FD are completely inflexible - I have been with them for 20 years and they treat every customer as if they have been with them for 5 minutes.

And that's why HSBC required no bail out and the other lenders went to the wall. Sound business practices went out the window. They took a calculated risk and failed.

franklee

socrates wrote: »

Mortgage Company becomes aware - whats the worst they can do - put the rate up? Call the mortgage in?

Putting the rate up means they are then giving consent to let.

Call the mortgage in? - When has there even been a thread about that on here?

When an insurance company takes on a property under a LL's policy unless it specifically says so in their terms and conditions that they need to see CTL then how can they turn round afterwards and say the policy is void?

I spoke to a insurance broker friend of mine today - he agreed with me - a lot of scare mongering.

The proof of the pudding is when a claim is made and I'd expect ARLA have rather more access to data on this than your mate:

http://www.arla.co.uk/infosheets/list.aspx?id=3

"Landlords - Buildings Insurance

...

Consent. It is essential that you advise and obtain consent to let your property from your mortgage lender, existing insurer and head lessee (for leasehold properties). Failure to obtain written consent from these parties may render your insurance void in the event of a claim. Sadly there have been many instances where buildings claims have been totally rejected because the insurer and or mortgage lender was not advised the property was let."

GMS

socrates wrote: »

The OP is not remortgaging or completing a mortgage - you keep cutting the cloth to fit your argument.

Things change and circumstances change - I had shares in Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley - where are they now?

The banks are making their money back ten-fold and as legislation has been put in place to protect tenants - who are being evicted as a result of their LL's property being repossessed - due to non payment of the mortgage - not for not having CTL - then what excuse does a bank have for not granting CTL - if and only if there is a dramatic change of circumstances. Job abroad, redundancy, serious illness, death etc.

I do not condone people getting a residential mortgage knowing they are going to rent it out in a couple of months. Thats a completely different story.

Once the banks started to move the goal posts - then so should the general public.

FD are completely inflexible - I have been with them for 20 years and they treat every customer as if they have been with them for 5 minutes.

I am aware of the OP not remortgaging but my point is that at the point of a mortgage the lender becomes noted on insurance and will therefore be noted when it lapses. I am not cutting cloth as you put it.

Banks do not need an excuse to not grant CTL, it is at their discretion. Letting is againt the terms of the agreed mortgage. Do you think somebody should be able to pay £300 for their car insurance and then phone up and ask for consent to drive for their 17 year old son as circumstances have changed, but not pay the additional premium for the risk?

Share are a gamble as you have unfortunately found out.

We have different opinions on this clearly.

As for FD, I have banked with them for 15 years or so and find them to be superb. Overdrafts, loans and credit cards granted as and when needed but cannot comment on their mortgages as never had one with them.

If people want to break their mortgage T&C's because people tell them it is ok then good luck to them. In this situation I believe the lender should be more accomodating but as they are clearly not going to be the OP needs to look at other options.

socrates

franklee wrote: »

The proof of the pudding is when a claim is made and I'd expect ARLA have rather more access to data on this than your mate:

http://www.arla.co.uk/infosheets/list.aspx?id=3

"Landlords - Buildings Insurance

...

Consent. It is essential that you advise and obtain consent to let your property from your mortgage lender, existing insurer and head lessee (for leasehold properties). Failure to obtain written consent from these parties may render your insurance void in the event of a claim. Sadly there have been many instances where buildings claims have been totally rejected because the insurer and or mortgage lender was not advised the property was let."

Well Google has a lot more data then my mate and ARLA - I performed a quick search for

"insurance claim rejected due to no consent to let"

guess what the first two entries are - yes you got it - money saving expert - this thread in 2nd place and another one is in first place.

So the scare mongers are the only ones making this an issue.

No doubt you will spend hours searching for something to prove me wrong on the internet.

My opinion on the subject is and always be - if the lender are not prepared to give CTL for a perfectly plausible reason as outlined before - then service the mortgage and perform your duties and responsibilities as a LL according to the letter of the law - and get LL's Insurance.

neverdespairgirl

I've come across several cases in which a mortgage holder is being prosecuted for getting out a residential mortgage with the intention of moving out shortly and letting it.