Renting House Out Without BTL Mortgage

monstermunching

Hello, I have been trying to get my property remortgaged in my sole name, following divorce (see my other thread). Although I have been paying this mortgage by myself for over 12 months, my mortgage lender seems to think that by applying in my sole name and increasing the length of my mortgage to reduce my monthly payments to almost half of what they are now, I cannot afford. This is putting me in a very difficult situation.

I am now stuck with a house in joint names, in the wrong area for my work with my ex-wife living in a different country and refusing to sign any paperwork.

I have thought about letting my house, as this would allow me to move and then sell in a few years when the market has (hopefully) improved. Do I need a buy to let' mortgage or is this purely a way for the lenders to make even more money? What consequences would I face if I did rent my house out with the existing mortgage? Would appreciate any advice/experience.

Werdnal

This is a subject that has been covered many times here.

You don't necessarily need a BTL mortgage, but you need to ask your lender's permission to let it. Some are understanding, and may agree, with some additional costs or clauses imposed on the loan, but some are not and refuse. Also, house insurance would need to be on Landlord terms, as you will not be living there.

Worst that can happen if you don't - repossession I'm afraid.

There is also a lot more to letting - if you are struggling to afford mortgage now, and the rent dries up through tenant deciding not to pay you - read the many other threads here about this type of thing - how will you manage?

Then there are all the legal responsibilities and additional costs of being a landlord. If you do get permission, make sure you know and fully understand what you are letting yourself in for.

G_M

BTL or Consent To Let. Some lenders give Consent, some give but charge a fee, some refuse.

as for letting, read this post.