Moving abroad with First Direct mortgage

asiabound

I've got the opportunity to relocate abroad with my company for a few years, but we currently have a 'life time'variable tracker repayment mortgage with First Direct (currently at 0.34% above base rate!!!:rotfl:) and I'm unsure if we need to let them know that, a) we're going abroad for a few years and, b) if we need to change the mortgage to a BTL (which FD don't do anyway!) or if they will give a consent to let? We won't be buying abroad and will want to return to the UK in a couple of years, so this will remain as our sole property. Clearly we don't want to loose our foot on the ladder or our good repayment rate. Has anyone had experience with FD on this as I don't want to call them to ask until I've sought some advice.
Really appreciate any help.

michaels

I asked them about such a situation and then said it wasn't impossible, at least for 12 months, but I am base plus 2 - with your rate they may be more incentivised to tell you no....

Henman_Bill

Why don't you call them anonymously using 141 before the number and then just say this is a general enquiry. Can I keep my tracker rate and get a consent to let and see what they say. Don't give them your name etc. Hang up if they insist on it. If they say, pay 0.25% more or pay £100, I would go for it.

If they say you have to move to a market rate and is going to cost you thousands I would seriously look into renting without telling them. You would need to get proper landlord's insurance, and make sure the bank doesn't find out, e.g. don't change your address. (This is not a reccomendation to do this, I am just trying to learn with you on this topic, so not sure that this is a good idea (for your situation)).

I am researching this topic and planning to do a thread on it as I am in a very similar situation. Good luck.

bigadaj

Your insurance won't be valid if your lender isn't informed.

Make sure you pick some reliable tenants, as if you don't change your address there might be plenty of opportunity for fraud, identity theft etc

Thrugelmir

The purpose of Consent To Let is for such circumstances. Normally for up to 3 years. So be upfront and you should have no issues.

Bigger concern may be the Agents you employ to look after your interests while you are of the country.

Henman_Bill

bigadaj wrote: »

Your insurance won't be valid if your lender isn't informed.

I have done some research on this and read many opinions, the majority of which disagreed with this. Most people seem to believe that buildings insurance is between you and the insurer and that as long as you have landlord's insurance (rather than regular insurance) you should be fine; that whatever agreement you have with the bank is not relevant, that the insurer is unlikely to contact the bank to verify, that the bank may not provide the information, and that the insurer would have to pay out (assuming that the contract doesn't mention consent to let).

So I was just curious why you came to your opinion. Any personal or professional experience you have, or sources you can point to, to back up that view, would be very helpful. I hope you don't mind. I am not trying to be awkward. I just want to get to the truth.

Thrugelmir

Henman_Bill wrote: »

Most people seem to believe that buildings insurance is between you and the insurer and that as long as you have landlord's insurance (rather than regular insurance) you should be fine;

Given that they are unlikely to have read their mortgage terms and conditions. Even less likely to have any understanding of insurance contracts. Which an insurance policy is.

Ignoring the small print is all very well. Until calamity strikes. Ignorance is no excuse as the saying goes.

Henman_Bill

I certainly will read all the small print. So let's say I sign up with an insurer and that nowhere in print or in the contract, or in the terms and conditions, or anywhere, is consent to let mentioned. Would you agree in that case that they would payout, and, moreover, that they would in fact have to pay out.

If possible, I will double checking by calling them anonymously to ask that very question.

Thrugelmir

The responsibility is on the policyholder to disclose all material facts whether a question is asked or not.

Given a lender has an insurable interest in a property. Then this could be considered a material fact.

The fact that someone has not obtained permission. Can suggest to the insurer that they are equally likely to have not acted in a proper manner in other dealings. In simple terms unreliable and more likely to lie.

MissMoneypenny

Henman_Bill wrote: »

or sources you can point to,

On the Association of Residential Letting Agents, guide for landlords.

Consent. It is essential that you advise and obtain consent to let your property from your mortgage lender, existing insurer and head lessee (for leasehold properties). Failure to obtain written consent from these parties may render your insurance void in the event of a claim. Sadly there have been many instances where buildings claims have been totally rejected because the insurer and or mortgage lender was not advised the property was let.
http://www.arla.co.uk/information/insurance/buildings-insurance/

Henman_Bill

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

On the Association of Residential Letting Agents, guide for landlords.

Consent. It is essential that you advise and obtain consent to let your property from your mortgage lender, existing insurer and head lessee (for leasehold properties). Failure to obtain written consent from these parties may render your insurance void in the event of a claim. Sadly there have been many instances where buildings claims have been totally rejected because the insurer and or mortgage lender was not advised the property was let.
http://www.arla.co.uk/information/insurance/buildings-insurance/

Thank you - interesting. Of course the and/or phrasing is ambigious and doesn't make it clear if the insurance would be invalidated if ONLY the lender were not informed but the insurer WAS informed.