We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Unable to port mortgage with consent to let
nicolacj
Posts: 1 Newbie
I own a property that I bought on a five year fixed residential mortgage. My circumstances changed and I moved in with my girlfriend and we then had a baby. I got consent to let from the bank who approved it and we've happily rented for the past two years whilst tenanting the property.
We now want to buy a new property for our expanding family - we enquired with Nationwide about our eligibility to borrow more and were provisionally told we could borrow much more than we wanted but to find a property first and then they would give us a mortgage in principle. We put the flat up for sale, accepted an offer and found somewhere new to buy knowing we had a product with portability.
NOW the bank is telling us we can't port the mortgage whilst consent to let is on the property. So our option is to kick our tenants out and risk breaking the chain, have the chain be broken and try to sell again whilst the place is empty, or press ahead and pay the £10k ERC. I don't understand why the bank would want us to have an empty property and higher risk of defaulting? We are on a very high rate as it is (4.89%) so imagine they would be happy to keep us on this rate. I am a bit bewildered by being unable to port, or even apply to port, as would presume the consent to let would become null and void once the property is sold.
Should I try and fight this with the bank, as it was pointed out to us we couldn't borrow more whilst the property was let but we were never told it couldn't be ported; or should I tell them the property is no longer let with immediate effect (knowing the tenants are leaving in 5 weeks time) to try and keep the chain from falling apart?
We now want to buy a new property for our expanding family - we enquired with Nationwide about our eligibility to borrow more and were provisionally told we could borrow much more than we wanted but to find a property first and then they would give us a mortgage in principle. We put the flat up for sale, accepted an offer and found somewhere new to buy knowing we had a product with portability.
NOW the bank is telling us we can't port the mortgage whilst consent to let is on the property. So our option is to kick our tenants out and risk breaking the chain, have the chain be broken and try to sell again whilst the place is empty, or press ahead and pay the £10k ERC. I don't understand why the bank would want us to have an empty property and higher risk of defaulting? We are on a very high rate as it is (4.89%) so imagine they would be happy to keep us on this rate. I am a bit bewildered by being unable to port, or even apply to port, as would presume the consent to let would become null and void once the property is sold.
Should I try and fight this with the bank, as it was pointed out to us we couldn't borrow more whilst the property was let but we were never told it couldn't be ported; or should I tell them the property is no longer let with immediate effect (knowing the tenants are leaving in 5 weeks time) to try and keep the chain from falling apart?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards