Permission to Let

Suziekp

I have a property which I used to live in which I have rented out for the past three years. I have had permission to let from my lender throughout this period. The mortgage company have now written to me saying that the mortgage is a residential product and they will only give permission for a further six month rental.

Basically they are forcing me to get a buy to let mortgage which I understand are very expensive.

I dont understand why they are doing this - I am not in arrears and am making capital repayments so there are no issues regarding paying off the mortgage. What difference does it make if I live there or the tenant lives there?!

Is there anything I can do? I have considered selling but I would lose equity. I would prefer to continue to let.
Thanks for any suggestions!

Thrugelmir

Suziekp wrote: »

Basically they are forcing me to get a buy to let mortgage which I understand are very expensive.

I dont understand why they are doing this

Consent to let is normally only granted for a temporary period. While the owners work abroad etc.

Given that 3 years has past. You obviously have no intention of returning to the property (maybe you own another ). So the lender is now taking the view that you are running a business. As a consequence wishes to charge you the going rate for this type of lending.

Why should you take all the profit and the lender the risk?