NRAM's Consent to Let Fee increase

sawebs

mrginge wrote: »

Well you're wrong.

Good luck anyway.

We'll see. Are you a lawyer? If so, I greatly appreciate your advice. If not, go forth.

sawebs

Now I understand. This site isn't for serious discussion, it's for bored people to wind each other up with random criticisms! I get it.:rotfl:

wolfplayer

sawebs wrote: »

You say £750 a year for CTL is reasonable. What makes you say that? When I started renting it out, it was £100 a year. Do they think I am now going to move back because they have put up the CTL fee by 750%?

Why? Because you were given 3 years temporarily, under Consent-To-Lease, to allow you to reposition your situation, on very generous terms. Becuse other landlords, on a more permanent basis, have to pay extra, or have a higher LTV, under Buy-To-Let commercial mortgages. So even £750 - £1,500 seems okay to balance it out a bit and extend your CTL. Also I suspect banks have more regulatory risks/costs under CTL. Banks aren't charities either. Borrow the money... pay it back. That's what I would have done if other buyers hadn't massively outbid me.

sawebs

wolfplayer, I don't think your comments have anything to do with logic or reasonableness, you would just agree with anything that punishes landlords, whether unfair, or grossly unfair. You just want landlords to pay more because you don't like them, because things haven't worked out for you quite as well as you would have liked. I would love to get rid of that house, believe me. I am one of the many reluctant landlords, who scrimp and save, and who wonder how they are going to survive next time a tenant goes AWOL or smashes the place up.

mrginge

sawebs wrote: »

Now I understand. This site isn't for serious discussion, it's for bored people to wind each other up with random criticisms! I get it.:rotfl:

No i think you'll find that this is the site where people can come and ask a question and then have a big old sulky cry when someone disagrees with them.

Or you can come along and post a rant about about how unfair something is without understanding the subject that you're ranting about. Then you can resort to slagging off anyone else who happens to have more knowledge about the subject.

Go waste some money on a lawyer if you want a definitive answer rather than post pointless threads on a public forum.

sawebs

mrginge wrote: »

No i think you'll find that this is the site where people can come and ask a question and then have a big old sulky cry when someone disagrees with them.

Or you can come along and post a rant about about how unfair something is without understanding the subject that you're ranting about. Then you can resort to slagging off anyone else who happens to have more knowledge about the subject.

Go waste some money on a lawyer if you want a definitive answer rather than post pointless threads on a public forum.

Haha, that's not a bad comeback.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me, as long as they back it up with FACTS not just their POV. I haven't been ranting or crying, I've been asking people to back up their prejudices with logic, not emotion.

Incidentally, you have absolutely no idea how much I know about this subject. I may not be a lawyer but I'm a chartered accountant with 25 years experience, so not some spotty oik who shoots his mouth off with no knowledge or experience.

I will look into it further. I prefer to be armed with the facts, not just guess at what is "obvious" to people who are (I presume) not experts in the field.

sawebs

Back to my original post, before I got sidetracked - if there is anyone else who comes across this post and would be interested in challenging NRAM on these fees, please get in touch.

angryhaggis

sawebs wrote: »

Anybody interested in clubbing together to start a legal class action against NRAM to stop the criminal CTL fees? Mine went from £100 to £750 and I don't see how they can justify it.

BTW what gives Thrugelmir the divine right to decide that CTL is only ever a short term arrangement? Surely that is down to the prevailing circumstances? If you are forced to move for work and are in negative equity, but there is a long term economic situation which is depressing house prices, then why should there be an arbitrary figure of 3 years?

Hi Sawebs - just been reading through this thread and your situation with NRAM and CTL fees. I am in a similar situation with NRAM & CTL and would like to ask a question:

What happens in the CTL scenario approaching the end of year 3? Would NRAM (presumably not continuing to grant CTL on-going after year three) start proceedings to repossess the property? Or at that point would you be entitled to raise a complaint with the FCA on the decision on CTL? Again assuming you are a ‘trapped’ customer e.g. not enough equity/savings to move to BTL mortgage product and selling would not attract sufficient bids to clear outstanding mortgage balance?

Thanks in advance!

Thrugelmir

angryhaggis wrote: »

Or at that point would you be entitled to raise a complaint with the FCA on the decision on CTL?

On what grounds? As is a commercial decision. Read the small print of your mortgage contract and see what it says.

hooperman111

Just spoke to NRAM two days ago about consent to let on my house.
They said that they have changed the rules recently - you can do it for one year only, then after that its move back in, leave empty, or get a mortgage somewhere else!
You have to book a 45 minute phone call with a "mortgage advisor" so no form to fill in so far.