Being penalised for being in the Armed Forces

mi33cupc@ke

Hi all,

As I have posted before, we sold our first house in 2007, which was on a residential mortgage with Northern Rock and was being let out as my husband is a serving member of the armed forces. When we went to buy another house we were told by Northern Rock that we were no longer entitled to a residential mortgage as we would be letting it out and they would only agree to give us a Buy to Let mortgage with a much higher rate of interest and charges i.e 6.59% fixed for 5 years as opposed to the 4% fixed deals that were also available at the time. We told them that although we would have to rent the house out, it would be our main residence and we intend to live there once my husband gets out, but they wouldn't hear of it. Anyway we took the deal thinking we had no choice.

I have since been trying to find out if there is a relevant law against doing this and today came across this: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/mortgages-and-homes/mortgages-features/article.html?in_article_id=495207&in_page_id=58
Of particular note is comment number 3 at the bottom by Kevin Langshaw from Plymouth.

I know I am not the only one that this has happened to and wondering if anyone else has had any luck in getting interest back from their mortgage lender. According to this chap there is a relevant law against this. Does anyone know where I could find this so I can go to my lender armed with something more concrete?

Many thanks for any help or advice anyone can give!

kingstreet

You didn't link to what you wanted us to see!

mi33cupc@ke

Thanks, I've just edited it.

PasturesNew

If you google Kevin Langshaw, Plymouth then you find he's a mortgage advisor that's easily found and you can give him a call.

kingstreet

If it's just the three lenders mentioned in the article, who are obviously shooting themselves in the foot, I'd simply ignore them and go to a lender who wants my business.

lazer

I personally believe that service personnel are not being financially penalised, in fact they are being treated the same as everyone else.

You buy a house, then you have to move because of your job, you need to either keave the house empty, sell it, or rent it out, therefore you need permision to let from the mortgage, and if it is for a prolonged period of time then you will need a buy to let mortgage.

No-one is forcing you to buy a house.

As for saying that when you give your job as being in the armed forces on the mortgage application, the lender should know your position and realise that you may need to let the house, this is not necessarily true, many memebers of the armed forces leave the wife and kids at home when they are posted elsewhere.

I appreciate that you do a very specific job and are serving your country, however the banks are (well used to be) a business, and should treat all their customers the same based on risk.

How fair is it that someone in the armed forces can access cheap buy to let mortgage because they have been posted elsewhere, whereas anyone else, in a private company, is relocated for business reasons for a shot term period, still has to pay the extorniate rates?

hcb42

typical daily mail reporting, but OP at the end of the day you had a choice, and didnt have to pick them. In fact many people pick more expensive mortgage deals every day of the week, but it's not illegal for lenders to be more expensive than others or have different criteria