Mortgage company refuses to lend due to builders smallprint

middleclassbutpoor

Is the restriction not purely just covering the house being sold without any outstanding money due for any outstanding liabilities of maintenance that may be due.

I had this about 10 years ago - I didn't pay the management company for 2 years as I couldn't justify paying them for doing nothing. I had to pay on sale though before that could go through. Maybe the restriction gives cover for any seller or their conveyancer somehow failing to clear the maintenance debt?

Sedwards

It would make sense if it was the current/most recent maintenance company which had to give their approval of anyone wanting to sell their house and move out, HOWEVER this deed restriction names the original maintenance contractor only, and by name, as being the company that has to give their permission forvever and ever effectively, even though the residents can pick their own choice of new maintenance contractor, replacing the original named one, after the first 5 years.

It’s like having to ask your EX wife whether you can try for kids with your NEW wife, anytime after the divorce....!!!!!!!

Sedwards

A quick, but rather scary update.

I’ve had callbacks from 5 of the big, high street mortgage lenders and 4 of them (Barclays, Nationwide, Nat West & Halifax) , now that this nasty smallprint has been brought to their attention, wouldn’t offer a mortgage on properties with this clause in the deeds. The fifth callback (Lloyd’s bank) said that they wouldn’t offer a mortgage on properties covered by this deed smallprint “generally” but might be able to if we were to go through their full mortgage process, at which point they’d look at each property/offer on a case-by-case basis.

This is Lindens, via their subsidiary maintenance company effectively holding homeowners dreams of moving house to ransom, on the off-chance that there might be a few months of late maintenance payments on. Potentially costing entire chains of house movers thousands of pounds if the chain breaks due to some maintenance company which, once upon a time, used to provide maintenance services to one property in the chain.

Crazy!

A watchdog organisation, with teeth, and no backhanders from the building firm, needs to be set up to regulate, moderate and punish out of control, above the law, building firms.

Niv

I am impressed that you have had such a response. Maybe these companies do read emails sent in by concerned citizens.

AnotherJoe

Good on them, they are protecting buyers as well as themselves. You'd think with the big boys like that not taking such mortgages this clause wouldnt fly in the first place. Have you tried having the clause removed from your contract?
If you have and they wont play ball, just walk away.
(also did you take up my suggestion of contacting a property column in one of the broadsheets?)

Sedwards

“If you have and they wont play ball, just walk away.
(also did you take up my suggestion of contacting a property column in one of the broadsheets?)”

(Sorry, can’t get quote option to work)

No, I’ve not looked into the newspaper angle yet. Getting the email list up to 250 mortgage lenders including a fair few of the “we’ll find the right mortgage for you” type companies has taken up a lot of time. Plus we’re still packing up all our possessions, in case Lindens see the error of their ways and adjust their grip on what shouldn’t be their concern in the first place. At the moment, it’s almost as though they don’t actually want to sell any houses.

Getting the national newspapers and bbc watchdog is certainly high on my list of what to do next. However, I don’t read the national newspapers regularly so don’t know which papers are most likely to take interest, or give column spacing to this. It’s potentially devastating to us, and other mortgage hunters considering a Linden house, but is it newsworthy for a paper? I don’t know.

AnotherJoe

Asking again ......

Have you tried having the clause removed from your contract?

Sedwards

Yes. Our solicitor was told fairly instantly that it wouldn’t be changed/removed.

Mind you, that was only the sales girl in the site sales office allegedly passing on Linden Homes head office reply.

The crazy thing is, the clause doesn’t need removing fully, just “or successor “ added to the mention of the maintenance contractors name.

AnotherJoe

Sedwards wrote: »

Yes. Our solicitor was told fairly instantly that it wouldn’t be changed/removed.

Mind you, that was only the sales girl in the site sales office allegedly passing on Linden Homes head office reply.

The crazy thing is, the clause doesn’t need removing fully, just “or successor “ added to the mention of the maintenance contractors name.

I'd want something in writing not a verbal reply from a salesperson!

Surely your solicitor should have written to Lindens solicitor and got a reply or even just put an revised contract back with the offending clause removed and see what happens.

You are making it sound as if you popped into the office and had a word with a sales person?


Anyway, if "thats it" I'd pull put, demand my reservation deposit back (in writing) and send a letter (written) to the CEO of Lindon homes stating you have pulled out because your lender and others you have enquired about (name them) find this clause to be unreasonable and will not lend.


Builders are having problems selling homes at the moment they dont need to be shooting themselves in the foot with ridiculous conditions like this.

Southend1

Run! Run like the wind!








You have had a lucky escape. Why would you want to enter into a contract that requires someone else to give you permission to sell your property? Presumably they will try to extract cash for the privilege. Not only that but it could make the property very difficult to sell on in future.






Personally I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.