Interest only ends when I am 65

noddynoo

Nationwide don't offer IO anymore no matter what your current agreement is.

somethingcorporate

Cornucopia wrote: »

About a year on a 10 year mortgage. I was genuinely surprised how easy the process was - one A4 form and a confirmation letter within a couple of days.

B2Ls are based upon self-funding criteria that do not really look at the income of the person running the business so not really sure your experience is actually relevant.

holly_hobby

somethingcorporate wrote: »

B2Ls are based upon self-funding criteria that do not really look at the income of the person running the business so not really sure your experience is actually relevant.

Absolutely spot on SC. - BTLs are unregulated lending which means you can still obtain true interest only arrangments (whereas reg lending is pulling right away from these), and in general don't have the strict age restrictions that resi mges do (due the funding basis) - so Cornucopia. having had the term extended really wasn't a big deal given the circs, nor can be used as a valid yard stick for the OPs situation.

As you say, if we are comparing, lets compare apples with apples.

I'm saying this not to be a party pooper, but because I don't want the OP to build their hopes up that the lender are somehow duty bound to extend the term, they're not (as Thurls has quite rightly pointed out).

Having said that they will want to be seen as treating customers fairly, so they may agree to a short term extension (but may insist upon a change from IO to C&I, or may not, it will be very much a suck it and see exercise as I explained in my earlier post, and the LTV will have a role to play).

I do hope that the OP can achieve what the want with Nwide, but its important in any discussion to be balanced (and positive where possible !), which means looking at both sides of the argument.

Hope this helps ..

H x

Thrugelmir

paulo100 wrote: »

Once again I will repeat, I would prefer to extend my mortgage arrangement another 5 years.

To state the obvious. At a 2.5% interest rate of course you would. Likewise this is costing the NW money at this level. So the NW would like (a) to charge you a higher rate of interest to make the transaction profitable (b) Seek scheduled repayment of the debt to improve its own balance sheet position.

paulo100

Holly, thanks, you have been very helpful. It's not really a case of building hopes to high, it will be what it will be, my preference would be to keep a mortgage for another 5 years, but if NW said no, it would not be a big deal. I absolutely understand that there is no obligation on the part of NW.
Thrugelmir, actually it's 1.5% so it's like not having a mortgage at all frankly.

Thrugelmir

paulo100 wrote: »

Thrugelmir, actually it's 1.5% so it's like not having a mortgage at all frankly.

Mines less than 1%. So expect my building society to change the terms any day.

In the meantime I fund my SIPP. :beer:

paulo100

Holly, in an earlier post you wrote

'Interest on a Lifetime mge, is generally rolled up - which naturally over time will negatively affect the free equity in the property (although there is a provider whom permits monthly payment of interest, which will effectively ring fence the free equity and debt). So involving any beneficiaries/family is important in the decision making process, early redemption pens can be hefty too'.

That is very interesting, as the understandable fear with lifetime mortgages is the rolling up of interest. I would love to know which company offers the opportunity to pay monthly interest, as you describe above.

noddynoo

If you have the money to pay it off now why do you want to pay the banks 5 more years of your hard earned?

somethingcorporate

noddynoo wrote: »

If you have the money to pay it off now why do you want to pay the banks 5 more years of your hard earned?

Because if they can earn 3-4% returns on their savings and only pay 1.5% on their mortgage then it's simple economics. They would be better off by not paying off the mortgage and continuing to compound the savings. Over 5 years of doing this you'd be quite a few grand up.

Thrugelmir

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Because if they can earn 3-4% returns on their savings and only pay 1.5% on their mortgage then it's simple economics. They would be better off by not paying off the mortgage and continuing to compound the savings. Over 5 years of doing this you'd be quite a few grand up.

and lenders won't play ball.