Mortgage company claim I'm subletting

davidmcn

G_M wrote: »

So you can't let your brother, mum, or cousin move in.
You can't let your boyfriend/girlfriend, husband/wife move in.
You can't let your mate stay overnight after a hard night at the pub (or when your birthday party ends)

It doesn't say you can't let them stay or move in, just that you can't give them a right to occupy the property.

I suspect condition 3.2 would contravene article 8 of the HRA (right to a private and family life)

HRA only affects public authorities, so not relevant here (I don't think even the banks owned by the government are "public" for this purpose).

bouicca21

I think 3.2 is meant to prevent sub-letting and is just badly written. I doubt it is meant to prevent the mortgagee moving in a spouse or living with his/her child(ren).

katejo

sevenhills wrote: »

I have a lodger, so believing I had to get permission from my mortgage provider(Coventry), I phoned them up - and they said they did not need to be informed, but he made a note of the phone call.

When I first got a lodger in 2006, I contacted my lender (then Alliance & Leicester) and told them. They sent me a form. It was clear from the form that it was only for tenants occupying the whole property not a lodger. I contacted the lender again. It was a mistake and I didn't need to declare it.

The OP does need to inform their home/buildings insurer though as many of them do not allow lodgers.

Tirian

Interesting ... although it may not breach HRA, I suspect there's a good case to be made that it is unfair terms and conditions as drafted and therefore unenforceable.

Although it may not be *intended* to prohibit spouse/children/family occupying the property, as drafted that is the meaning of the condition.

We have a mortgage with Chelsea, and we have an au pair (which is a necessity as we both work full time and both commute 90 mins each way). Strictly speaking it would seem that this would prohibit us from having an au pair. Which would mean one of us would lose our job with obvious impact on ability to pay the mortgage. So it's not even very sensible drafting from the point of view of their own interest ...

As previously pointed out however, they don't need any reason to refuse to extend additional credit. But if they try to make a fuss about breaking the terms of your mortgage by virtue of simply having a lodger, then I very much doubt they'd be able to do anything that would stand up in a court. Not least because lodgers don't typically have a right to occupy the property, you can tell them to get out at any point you like.

loulous

Thank you for everyone's input. I took it to a formal complaint with the Chelsea and they called in the week to advise that my complaint had been upheld.

The person who I originally spoke to had indeed conveyed incorrect information to the underwriters but she was far from inexperienced it seems. Anyway, details are to be sent to her line manager for training purposes, though I suspect that's just one of those lines companies trot out so we think they are doing something!

So they've offered me monetary compensation which I have accepted, and I spoke to the sales team yesterday and the additional lending is approved, just waiting for the paperwork to arrive.

G_M

Great news.

Well done.

Mutton_Geoff

Well done, and thank you for coming back with an update. Many regulars here offer advice to people never to be seen again. It's always nice to learn of the success stories.