Mortgage on a leasehold apartment with a flat roof.

Yellowstone2

I'm interested in buying an apartment, it's a leasehold and a proportion of the whole building has a flat roof. I understand this can be seen as 'non-standard construction' and may limit my mortgage options possibly depending on how much of the roof is flat. Would mortgage lenders look at the proportion of the roof over the apartment itself, or the proportion of the whole building? Would it make any difference that its a leasehold, and there's building insurance and maintenance in place to cover any issues like leaks etc by the management company? Would I have to do a full mortgage application, and get to the point of a survey before finding out if a lender would consider it? (I know too many of those and the credit checks would impact my credit rating) Are mortgage brokers likely to know which lenders might give a mortgage on a flat roof property? 

user1977

Flat roofs in themselves don't indicate "non-standard construction" in relation to the building in general, they're just flat roofs. And pretty commonplace. I wouldn't expect a particular difficulty with finding a lender, I'm not sure whether any even refuse to lend.

(Almost) all flats in England/Wales are leasehold, so the answer to "would it make any difference that its a leasehold" is no - it would be downright weird (and more problematic) if it wasn't leasehold.

Maintenance/insurance are likely to cost more than for a pitched roof.

Yes, a broker can guide you through in general and know about lender criteria.

K_S

@yellowstone2 There's no black and white answer to your question as a specific lender's approach will vary based on their criteria and the specifics of the property - resi/btl, what kind of build/age (modern purpose built, converted, etc.), what kind of roof (standard, bituminous felt, etc.), % of flat roof coverage, resi/commercial aspects, condition of the roof, LTV, etc.

You definitely shouldn't go in blind, either speak to the lender yourself or get a broker. While a broker can run the details past the lender in advance (and with a small number of lenders like Nationwide the surveyor panel itself which is even better), they won't be able to 'guarantee' a positive outcome as the lender will always leave themselves an out by saying it will be 'subject to valuer comments'. I hope that makes sense.

I know of landlord clients who avoid flat-roofs out of personal preference (as any repair works can be very expensive especially on a larger block) but from a mortgage point of view, unless you're aware of any particular issues with mortgageability or the condition of the roof, I wouldn't worry too much at this stage.

I've had a lot of clients buying/re-mortgaging flats in east London and very very generally speaking, I've never had an issue placing a flat in a modern purpose built block simply because of a flat roof. Plus, with the exception of a couple, most mainstream lenders offer a free valuation so you can get to that stage without incurring any sunk costs.

Yellowstone2 said:

I'm interested in buying an apartment, it's a leasehold and a proportion of the whole building has a flat roof. I understand this can be seen as 'non-standard construction' and may limit my mortgage options possibly depending on how much of the roof is flat. Would mortgage lenders look at the proportion of the roof over the apartment itself, or the proportion of the whole building? Would it make any difference that its a leasehold, and there's building insurance and maintenance in place to cover any issues like leaks etc by the management company? Would I have to do a full mortgage application, and get to the point of a survey before finding out if a lender would consider it? (I know too many of those and the credit checks would impact my credit rating) Are mortgage brokers likely to know which lenders might give a mortgage on a flat roof property? 

Yellowstone2

user1977 said:

(Almost) all flats in England/Wales are leasehold, so the answer to "would it make any difference that its a leasehold" is no - it would be downright weird (and more problematic) if it wasn't leasehold.

Sorry I probably didn't explain myself well there. I meant that as it's leasehold that all tenants will be paying a service charge to a management company which pays for buildings insurance and remedial repairs.