Crazy Halifax 'consent to lease' rates - please help!

SecondLegDownIsTheBigOne

If you are to become BTL speculators the bank will rightly take their pound of flesh. They have a stake in the house too.

DTDfanBoy

If it's a struggle to find £599 for mortgage fees, renting your house isn't really a viable option. What happens when you new tenant decides not to pay any rent, and you are forced to go to court to get them out. £599 is a pretty small drop in what could easily become a pretty big pond

silvercar

Werdnal wrote: »

Me too, and I think judging by the higher fees and penalties the mortgage lenders are imposing they seem to be getting jittery about it too.

I hope the lenders are imposing these high rates for the right reasons ie to justify the higher risks with a tenanted property.

The cynic in me wonders if the lenders are hoping that the borrower will let without consent-to-let and avoid paperwork hassles for the lender as well as protecting the lender should the worst happen and the lender needs to repossess.

The whole CTL permission is fraught with problems, not least these short term consents which expire while a tenancy is in force.

Or maybe the lenders are not really analysing the situation but just seeing an opportunity to make some money.

BitterAndTwisted

Another alternative suggestion is that you continue to reside in your home in London and your husband finds himself a Monday to Friday place as a lodger in the South West and comes home at the weekends. This will be a whole lot cheaper than renting a pied a terre.

There's a website dedicated this sort of accommodation

TrickyDicky101

silvercar wrote: »

Or maybe the lenders are not really analysing the situation but just seeing an opportunity to make some money.

Nothing wrong with a business wanting to make money.

It's not the lender attempting to change the conditions under which the mortgage funds have been lent, so why wouldn't they charge?

If the prospective LL doesn't like the terms then they can always move their mortgage to some other lender. If this proves too costly, then perhaps they shouldn't have agreed to enter into such an expensive and restrictive mortgage agreement in the first place? Or maybe they should have taken these potential costs into account before accepting the new opportunity that led to this need.

mindthegap9940

Had a look at some websites and spoken to mortgage advisor and reckon we can get a better deal if we transfer to buy-to-let and just deal with the early repayment charges so will pursue this. Living apart is an option but if there's any way we can avoid it we'll try to. Thanks for the advice.

mindthegap9940

. . . and can I just say for those that have posted the ' . . you really should have thought about this eventuality before you agreed to mortgage' comments . . . life happens! You're pretty fortunate if you've never found yourself in a situation where you have to make difficult and financially challenging decisions. Our situation, like the situation of many others currently, has changed and we are adapting to it as best we can. We had no inkling when we took our mortgage out many years ago that we would ever need to move away from where we lived. We're not trying to make a quick buck and we're not questioning the bank's right to their fair share given the associated risks. We just feel the costs aren't really proportionate to the risks and are looking for a better deal that will enable myself and my partner to live together. Thanks again for those who have posted useful advice.

jjlandlord

Halifax was bankrupt and had to be bailed out and nationalised.
So they have to get the money where-ever they can (to be fair so have all banks these days)

Considering the state of the economy and property market, hitting the residential mortgages is not seen as viable.
So they hit where there's no political risk and where they know there's money: buy-to-let/consent-to-let.

brit1234

It seems simple, either sell, accept Halifax's terms or remortgage with someone else paying any relevant fees.

Halifax aren't being crazy, they are a business not a charity and need to make money and at the same time compensate for the increased risk to them via your letting.

BitterAndTwisted

I don't think that any feathers have been ruffled, really. It's just that other folks on here may understand the reals risks of becoming accidental landlords than you do at the moment. This is a course of action that you must not enter into without being aware of what you may be doing to yourselves and your future financial security. This is not something that you should rush headlong into because you see it as the only possible course of action. Some of the comments may have appeared harsh and judgemental but I suspect the intention was to halt you to make you think twice about what you may be taking on.

There is a thread or link on here giving advice to prospective landlords somewhere (GM? maybe it's in that thread linked to earlier) so I'll see if I can find it for you.