News from my chat with First Direct

stoke_bishop

Just thought I'd pass this on.
The 0113 2766166 number that someone posted on another thread gets round the 10 day callback issue. You get straight through to someone who will process your case.

Good stuff

Less than good from my point of view is that they will not do Consent to Let.
This is if I go up north (for example) for six months and want to rent out my house while I am on a fixed rate. Most lenders will allow you to do this under a "Consent to Let" (or some similarly titled) scheme. Not First Direct. They told me that they would flatly refuse it. This means that you would not be able to rent it out through a Property Management company and would have to rent it out yourself. This may not be such a hardship -- for me it would be. And you would be breaking their Ts and Cs. They give you no flexibility to do temporary renting out of your propery, which I think is absolutely crazy. :mad:

homer_j_3

consent to let means they consent to let full stop. Not having it means you are breaking the t&c's of the mortgage regardless of doing it through an agency or privately.

stoke_bishop

homer_j wrote: »

consent to let means they consent to let full stop. Not having it means you are breaking the t&c's of the mortgage regardless of doing it through an agency or privately.

Yes absolutely. I was not meaning to imply otherwise. The only difference is that no-one checks if you do it privately, as many people I know do.
Similarly, with the I/O mortgages. How many people actually have a repayment vehicle in place? The point I am making is that without a CtL you can not rent it out through an agency full stop. You could do it privately however albeit still breaking the T&Cs. As I can't be bothered with breaking T&Cs - I want everything above board -- I can't be bothered with FD.

homer_j_3

I am sure that as an upstanding honest person that was not the case. My post was just to clarify as it may be perceived as if it was perfectly OK.

silvercar

The point I am making is that without a CtL you can not rent it out through an agency full stop.

Only if they ask and/ or check; most don't.

It seems unreasonable for the lender to be difficult for the sake of a short term let. Surely the aim of the mortgage lender and the customer is to pay the mortgage and the best way of ensuring that is to allow the rental.

Incidentally breaching a mortgage term is not the same as applying for a mortgage with the intention of letting the property. The latter would be fraud, obtaining money by deception, the former is only a breach of T&Cs.

TwelfthMan

stoke_bishop wrote: »

Yes absolutely. I was not meaning to imply otherwise. The only difference is that no-one checks if you do it privately, as many people I know do.
Similarly, with the I/O mortgages. How many people actually have a repayment vehicle in place? The point I am making is that without a CtL you can not rent it out through an agency full stop. You could do it privately however albeit still breaking the T&Cs. As I can't be bothered with breaking T&Cs - I want everything above board -- I can't be bothered with FD.

Many lenders will insist on a repayment vehicle being in place on interest only mortgages, particularly on higher LTVs. They may also insist on having their name noted on the policy and for a customer to surrender the policy early they would need to get the permission of the lender who would probably then ask the customer to switch back on to C&I.