Barclays forcing a mortgage borrower out

Thrugelmir

uptomyeyeballs wrote: »

The circumstances of the request to let hardly make it a 'business', believe me. She just doesn't understand why Barclays are being so unhelpful and want her to go elsewhere after 17 years.

Because she's exhausted the normal term that CTL is allowed i.e. 3 years and is not intending to move back into the property. Obviously letting it as a business venture given the current 12 month tenancy.

ethank

No such thing as loyalty. They are a business.

Thrugelmir

ethank wrote: »

No such thing as loyalty. They are a business.

Customers are quick enough to move elsewhere if there's a better deal on offer.

uptomyeyeballs

Suggest you all re-read the original post. Some of the replies here have nothing to do with it at all. For those who haven't grasped it, it's about customer service. Being threatening, obstructive and rude on the phone when the customer is trying to sort it out is the issue.

PeacefulWaters

uptomyeyeballs wrote: »

My sister has had her mortgage for the last 17 years with Woolwich/Barclays. For the last 3 years she's been renting her house out (with proper consent from them).

But they don't have to give consent at all. The fact they have done so in the past is a concession.

Anyway, they've now decided that they aren't going to re-grant that consent and have told her that she needs to change to a proper buy-to-let mortgage. No problem, she says. So, she's asked them to give her details of their BTL mortgages that'll fit her needs, but they've told her she doesn't qualify (on earnings!).

They don't have to grant her the lending.

The house is worth £115k and she only owes about £30k, so £85k equity. So, she's now being forced elsewhere to see if anyone else will oblige. What a poor show for an existing customer!

It is the customer who has changed the nature of the relationship. Not the lender.

Anyone else had this happen to them? How did you resolve it?

A visit to a mortgage broker should find a solution.

Or live in the property.

Or sell it.

Lots of choices.

uptomyeyeballs wrote: »

Suggest you all re-read the original post. Some of the replies here have nothing to do with it at all.

I have answered the post above. I've subsequently read the other answers which appear to be relevant, reasonable and accurate in the main.

For those who haven't grasped it, it's about customer service.

You indicated it was about lending policy. Their lending policy seems to be saying that three years is long enough.

Being threatening, obstructive and rude on the phone when the customer is trying to sort it out is the issue.

You didn't really position it this way, but sometimes there are basic facts to consider.

1) Being obstructive: if their lending policy doesn't support what the customer wants to do then what else can they be? Their policy doesn't allow progress.

2) Being threatening: if the borrower isn't complying with the agreement then the lender has certain rights. It would be wrong of them not to mention it.

3) Being rude: sometimes being told what you don't want to hear can be interpreted as rude. Often the truth isn't rude.

anselld

uptomyeyeballs wrote: »

Suggest you all re-read the original post. Some of the replies here have nothing to do with it at all.

Asked and answered!

She needs to remortgage with a provider who caters for her circumstances.

What part of the fairly unanimous answer didn't you like?

uptomyeyeballs

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

But they don't have to give consent at all. The fact they have done so in the past is a concession.

They don't have to grant her the lending.

This is true. Just pointing out she did everything above board and honestly, without trying to con anyone. Barclays have even claimed they didn't give consent for the third year. She has written evidence that they did.

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

It is the customer who has changed the nature of the relationship. Not the lender.

This is true, but it was done in good faith, with approval where necessary

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

A visit to a mortgage broker should find a solution.

I'm sure it will.

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

Or live in the property.

Or sell it.

Lots of choices.

Not as many as you think.

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

I have answered the post above. I've subsequently read the other answers which appear to be relevant, reasonable and accurate in the main.

Yes, you have. Others insinuate maybe not paying tax and make insulting comments about her ability to run 'her business'. Not necessary. She decided to rent so she could look after a sick relative. It was never a money making exercise, and the rent doesn't cover the mortgage.

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

You indicated it was about lending policy. Their lending policy seems to be saying that three years is long enough.

It's more about their attitude to an existing customer, including denial of an agreement she has written evidence of. Of course they can withdraw that any time they wish.

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

You didn't really position it this way, but sometimes there are basic facts to consider.

Quite right, there are. Barclays don't want to discuss any of them.

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

1) Being obstructive: if their lending policy doesn't support what the customer wants to do then what else can they be? Their policy doesn't allow progress.

But it could help if they said from the start that she can't have a BTL mortgage from them. They didn't, they told her that she'd need to convert to a BTL and after she agreed that was the way to go, they then told her she couldn't have one. It's a low LTV %, so a bit perplexing.

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

2) Being threatening: if the borrower isn't complying with the agreement then the lender has certain rights. It would be wrong of them not to mention it.

They claimed she had been renting without their consent. She found this out when she rang asking if she could continue. Like I said, she has a letter from them stating it had been authorised. Everything has been done according to their terms, but they are now trying to claim otherwise.

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

3) Being rude: sometimes being told what you don't want to hear can be interpreted as rude. Often the truth isn't rude.

There are ways and means of imparting even the worst news in a sympathetic way. She says they were rude. She works in a customer facing job herself.

Thrugelmir

uptomyeyeballs wrote: »

Suggest you all re-read the original post. Some of the replies here have nothing to do with it at all. For those who haven't grasped it, it's about customer service. Being threatening, obstructive and rude on the phone when the customer is trying to sort it out is the issue.

Suggest you read the replies again. As has nothing to do with customer service. Lenders set the rules as it's their business.

Thrugelmir

uptomyeyeballs wrote: »

There are ways and means of imparting even the worst news in a sympathetic way. She says they were rude. She works in a customer facing job herself.

There's no grey when it comes to finance. Just black and white.

Why the need to be sympathetic? Find another lender.

Prothet_of_Doom

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Customers are quick enough to move elsewhere if there's a better deal on offer.

Some......are....and some ? CBA ?