Remortgage - why do I have to be sole occupier?

MrPeteUK

My first post so please bear with me

I'm trying to get things sorted out money-wise after many years of struggling after daft decisions. I have an interest-only mortgage on my house that I am now trying to convert to a capital repayment mortgage - via a different lender. My Mum lives in the house as well but does not contribute to the mortgage and never has done - but we are both on the title deeds.

I have approached an IFA who seems to think that a remortgage is possible - but that I would have to be the only person on the title deeds and therefore the mortgage. That isn't a problem - but he's also trying to say that my mother would not be able to live there either after I remortgage!

Surely this isn't correct? The current lender has (quite correctly) stated that they will not change the title deeds until the current mortgage is repaid, which I am fine about - but this issue of being the sole occupier seems very strange? Anyone any thoughts on it? I will of course speak to a solicitor this week but I just wanted to gauge any comment on it.

Thrugelmir

The answer to your question is very simple. In summary, if you were to default on the mortgage for any reason. The lender would be unable to repossess the property. Your mother would have a legal entitlement to remain in situ. Therefore it's a non starter of an idea.

So while it is possible to have more people named on the mortgage than the title deeds. The same does not apply the other way round.

Rollinghills

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The answer to your question is very simple. In summary, if you were to default on the mortgage for any reason. The lender would be unable to repossess the property. Your mother would have a legal entitlement to remain in situ. Therefore it's a non starter of an idea.

So while it is possible to have more people named on the mortgage than the title deeds. The same does not apply the other way round.

This is not the question being asked.
The broker is saying that the poster's mother will be removed from the title deed (standard) AND that she will not be able to live there, which doesn't sound right to me, I'm no expert though.

Thrugelmir

Rollinghills wrote: »

This is not the question being asked.
The broker is saying that the poster's mother will be removed from the title deed (standard) AND that she will not be able to live there, which doesn't sound right to me, I'm no expert though.

Same principle applies. In that the mother will have a vested financial interest in the property if she remains living in it. If the aim is to avoid care home fees this manoeuvre won't work either.

kingstreet

Most lenders will not accept someone formerly an owner of the property remaining in it if their ownership ends.

Think of the practical/legal implications of trying to evict someone in a case of repossession.

There is one lender which will allow more owners than mortgagors and that is HSBC.

I am unable to comment on the likelihood of success in such an application to them and am making no recommendation.