"Mobility" clause in employment contract

BobQ

smallpurplepill wrote: »

Hello all

Perhaps someone knows the answer to this? I couldn't find anything related through a search.

I'm looking to apply for a mortgage and seem to have had more difficulties and obstacles than most (despite good credit history etc)... I've been through my employment contract again and have a "mobility" clause (You may be required to move to other locations for business needs... etc) which I'm informed is a standard term they put in all contracts. I think it's just a technicality as the role doesn't involve "moving around" and many of my department colleagues have been there for several years, the place we work is 'fixed' as such.

Is a clause like this likely to put off lenders? (I'm assuming it's material information I have to give) - due to the (theoretical) possibility that I may be asked to move and have to sell at a loss or have a longer journey into work and all the costs that would be entailed. Does anyone know?

I cannot see any reason why a mortgage lender would think this a cause for concern. Many people have such a clause in their employment contracts. It is often used by employers that have sites in different areas of the country who may have a need to open others or to consolidate their staff on to a smaller number of sites. For example many civil servants have such terms as do the military.

I am not a mortgage advisor but I would have thought that the possibility of you being required to sell a mortgaged property would be well understood risk for the lender covered by ensuring the mortgage was well below 100%.

Also remember that most employers requiring you to relocate would also expect to pay some or all of your costs in doing so were they to ask you to do it.

Its more than a technicality for employment purposes. If your employer includes the term in your contract it can affect your redundancy terms. For example, if you work in Birmingham (and have the mobility requirement) and you are told the employer is moving you to Newcastle a refusal to relocate would mean you could be deemed to have sacked yourself by refusing to work according to your contract (ie no redundancy). But if your contract said you would be required to work at your employers sites in Birmingham you would have to be made redundant.

BobQ

smallpurplepill wrote: »

Thanks for the reply!

It's an office job in one of the "service" type of industries - so we don't work in various 'locations' as such, there is just our office of several hundred people and I think one other office (different part of the business) in another city also in the UK. As far as I know no-one normally moves between the offices, unless an internal job advert comes up and they actually apply to go to another office that is.

But if it suited your employer to consolidate its two businesses on to one site in a cheaper part of the country...... this maybe why they have included the clause in contracts?

BobQ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

If your employer were to relocate then you would expect to be offered the opportunity to move wouldn't you? Rather than being forced to take redundancy.

Two sides to a coin.

If you have a mobility clause in your employment contract you would probably not qualify for redundancy. You would be deemed to have resigned.

smallpurplepill

BobQ wrote: »

But if it suited your employer to consolidate its two businesses on to one site in a cheaper part of the country...... this maybe why they have included the clause in contracts?

Yeah, I've wondered about this... I don't think there is any plan like this but I guess something could change in the future (though no-one really knows what their employer might be "plotting" I suppose! :cool:) having asked HR etc in a roundabout way (though conscious what I could say as I don't want to put ideas into heads!!)

Yorkie1

My mortgage lender never asked about such a clause and I've never heard it being mentioned as relevant previously on these forums.

smallpurplepill

betmunch wrote: »

I can think of at least one lender that would not be happy with this, but in my opinion they look for reasons not to lend! They wouldnt ask for the contract as standard so would be unlikely to see it unless they had reason to ask for your contract, or you had your case auditted.

In gerenal terms this is unlikely to cause you a problem

Thanks, so hypothetically if audited (is this common?) a lender could then say I 'should' have disclosed it?

I am really struggling in general with this idea of "material" information and things a lender would consider relevant (that aren't asked about directly in the application already) - how am I meant to determine if such and such is a material fact etc. (This is a general comment and not specifically to the post made by betmunch)

smallpurplepill

McKneff wrote: »

Have you checked your credit file, there may be something on there that you are unaware of

Thanks for the reminder -- I had got the £2 reports from Experian and the other one a couple of years ago but don't regularly keep an eye on this. There wasn't anything strange on there at that time though (and I haven't missed any payments or anything since)

It's more a couple of strange 'individual' circumstances I think - I was an Open University student although I was working full time, so I think being a "student" puts people off (Luckily I've finished the degree now!), my previous job which I left (over a year ago now) the company name was different on my payslips/contract from the "Comments" on the BACS payments (this was because they used an automated payroll thing and the Comments text was an older name of the company), moved "too often" (I've been at this address for 4 years but before that, had to move on after 2 years and 18 months from the 2 previous houses due to landlords), have previously lived in a (rented..) property that was subject to a repossession, etc.

betmunch

I would suggest that you answer all their questions honestly and thats the end of it. I would also suggest a "material" fact that they would be concerned about is anything that will mean you are unable to pay the mortgage. Personnally I would not consider a mobilty clause "material", unless the company had already activated it

smallpurplepill

betmunch wrote: »

I would suggest that you answer all their questions honestly and thats the end of it. I would also suggest a "material" fact that they would be concerned about is anything that will mean you are unable to pay the mortgage. Personnally I would not consider a mobilty clause "material", unless the company had already activated it

OK... maybe I am reading too much into it / assuming the worst (I usually am...!) I guess they are looking more at the situation "as it is now" rather than "how it could potentially develop"... (I see more of the possibilities and risks of things than most people, the last adviser I spoke to (Bank guy) thought I was barmy I think!)

Thrugelmir

smallpurplepill wrote: »

OK... maybe I am reading too much into it / assuming the worst (I usually am...!) I guess they are looking more at the situation "as it is now" rather than "how it could potentially develop"... (I see more of the possibilities and risks of things than most people, the last adviser I spoke to (Bank guy) thought I was barmy I think!)

If to the best of knowledge your current position of employment is secure. Then there's nothing to declare.