Si T Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Hi all Been a while since I posted here but this one seems to be worthy of some opinions. So, as you will all be aware the housing market in the UK is in something of a low point and houses aren't selling as they were. We are flying to Perth on the 14th March and so have been discussing with estate agents the options open to us for the house we have in the UK. Based upon the general consensus of the estate agents selling it isn't really an option as we would have to pay an additional £12k or so to pay off the mortgage. Therefore we have been looking into renting it. We have whittled down the agenets to one we are happy with and so decided it was time to speak to the mortgage company. In the past a simple letter of consent seems to have been enough for people to rent their house out and I assumed this would be the case for us. It seems that the mortgage company have changed their policy and now you have to move onto a Buy to Let mortgage from day one. In this instance it would lead to a £1500 fee for setting it up as well as an additional £150 per month on the mortgage in interest charges. This has now made the whole renting concept unaffordable as we were borderline at the current mortgage payment once you take into account agents fees and potential repairs. The house was only completely renovated six years ago and so is in a very good state of repair but it is likely that something will need doing over the next couple of years. I have discussed this situation with the mortgage company in person and the response wasn't exactly helpful to be quite honest and they do not seem to want to work with me. The point of this post is that while I am from the school that debts should be cleared before you emigrate (and not from a moral viewpoint but from the practicality of having to move home someday if necessary) or at least carry on paying after you have left the UK, in this instance I am getting to the point where I will say that if they have no interest in helping in the short term they can take the house and absorb the losses. I have written to them today to request they put my current deal on an interest only basis for six months while I find my feet in Perth and then we can work together to take a longer term view. Before the whole moral issue comes up we have committed to clearing all debts before we emigrate so that we have a clear start in Perth but also have the opportunity to move back should we need to. I guess the point I am making is that sometimes you can be willing to do the right thing but if the lender is not willing to work with you then you can be left with no choice but to walk away from the debt. I am giving the lender every opportunity to work with me and explore all possible options before that step has to be taken even to the point of going onto an interest only basis until such time as the housing market recovers sufficiently to allow me to sell the house and pay the loan off completely but if it means that they are unwilling to work with me due to an inflexibility or unwillingness to help a genuine customer trying to do the right thing then I will walk away with a clear conscience and let them pick up the pieces themselves. From a moral viewpoint its easy to say that you should always clear all debts but if I genuinely feel after six months in Perth that our emigration has led to a better future for my family and the lender is unwilling to work with me to ensure that both parties benefit then that is their choice. Needed that, thanks for listening (reading) Si Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozziepom Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 The moral angle is hard to comment on, everyone has their own views. All I can say is that if you earn a decent wage in Aus the current strong A$ will make your repayments seem very small, I've read of several people in similar positions to yourself that are carving big lumps off their UK mortgages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Fabricator Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Sounds like your doing the right thing Si , i know mortgage people are positivly anal at times . While i cant tell u what to do , if i were due to sell my house , and realise id come out with absoloutly nothing , possibly negative equity id strongly consider just handing it over to the bank . However thats goiung to mess things up for possible future UK mortgages ! Interest only would be ideal for you and the bank , a very fair compromise IMO . lee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pintpot Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 I think you're doing the right thing in trying to work with your lender. I also think renting it out and trying to pay off sums (or at least get yourself out of negative equity which frees your hand) from Aus is the best solution, but as you say this will need the lender to take a reasonable view of your circumstances. Unfortunately I suspect you are getting a "Computer says no" type response, so I would keep trying to escalate it within your lender's organisation. Be at all times politely persistent and try as hard as you can you are genuine about wanting to resolve the negative equity from abroad so you can then sell if necessary. I would avoid any hint of threat or ultimatum in your communications with them. If you tell them something like "If you don't agree then I'll just bugger off to Aus and walk away", I very much suspect they will call your bluff Ultimately if all this gets you nowhere you can walk away, but I would say do it as a last resort. Defaulting on a mortgage isn't bankruptcy but it's not far off as far as your credit record is concerned - way worse than missing a few credit card payments. You can forget about getting another mortgage for a very long time if you've done it, and whilst you may think after 6 months you know you'll never want to return, you never know what life is going to throw at you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest30085 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Ah good luck with it Si, with the current climate you would think they would at least try to meet you an eighth of the way (not a chance of half-way - they are 'Bankers' after all :biggrin:). The usual argument is, well if you default then they repossess and chase you for the difference, but I wonder how much of that the Banks really recoup? Especially when repossessed properties are sold for a smaller percentage of their worth usually. I hope you manage to find a way to rent without Mr Banker taking his even bigger cut :wacko: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulr Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Hi Si, When you took out your mortgage did it say on the contract that you could just sign a letter of consent? if so i would say thats what you can do and tell them thats the case, of course they change their policies every 5 mins! i would say you have to go on whats on the contract and not what the lender fancies doing on a particular day! In any case i would rent it out and not bother telling them they are not going to find out. I dont think now is the time to sell, but how long will you have to keep it? are you in negative equity? Paul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paisleylass Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Considering the banking system is responsible for the mess that is the current housing market, you'd think the lenders would be more flexible with their precious customers, but nope. We did get 12 months consent to let, with no possibility of an extension, so somehow need to switch mortgage to another lender from Australia by mid-November next year. But the first month's fees plus a hefty repair bill mean the first 2-3 months we have nothing at all coming in while still paying the mortgage so we are actually paying to have a tenant in at the moment which wasn't the plan! Any more essential repairs mean we'd have to look at leaving the house empty, which means getting pricy insurance but also means saving a fair whack on mortgage fees - we'll see how it pans out. I just want to start earning and send all my salary back to overpay the mortgage as much as possible before having to switch. If we could stay with the current lender it could be paid off within 3-4 years, but having to switch to keep on letting would mess this up hugely ( One thing is for sure - I've done all my UK banking with First Direct for nearly 20 years, and when the time comes to move or redeem the mortgage I'll make sure and take any residual savings and banking away as well. It may not be their policy to allow people in a pickle to let their house out (well, for more than a year), but it's also not my policy to be a customer at a bank that is inflexible with people whose circumstances change! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherbetdip23 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Hiya - I have heard that so long as you have the correct insurance in place you really don't need to tell the mortgage company. How would they know you were renting it out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest30085 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Considering the banking system is responsible for the mess that is the current housing market, you'd think the lenders would be more flexible with their precious customers, but nope. We did get 12 months consent to let, with no possibility of an extension, so somehow need to switch mortgage to another lender from Australia by mid-November next year. But the first month's fees plus a hefty repair bill mean the first 2-3 months we have nothing at all coming in while still paying the mortgage so we are actually paying to have a tenant in at the moment which wasn't the plan! Any more essential repairs mean we'd have to look at leaving the house empty, which means getting pricy insurance but also means saving a fair whack on mortgage fees - we'll see how it pans out. I just want to start earning and send all my salary back to overpay the mortgage as much as possible before having to switch. If we could stay with the current lender it could be paid off within 3-4 years, but having to switch to keep on letting would mess this up hugely ( One thing is for sure - I've done all my UK banking with First Direct for nearly 20 years, and when the time comes to move or redeem the mortgage I'll make sure and take any residual savings and banking away as well. It may not be their policy to allow people in a pickle to let their house out (well, for more than a year), but it's also not my policy to be a customer at a bank that is inflexible with people whose circumstances change! Well said PL, I can remember from an earlier thread some of the red tape your bank were throwing at you :mad:. Im going to dig out my mortgage contract and have a laugh, I mean a look :biggrin:, at their terms and conditions about renting it out, if it doesnt sell when I finally get around to marketing it. Hopefully I can change lenders if they are less than accommodating. I have no such loyalty when it comes to who gets to take my hard earned money in interest and charges :sad:. Good luck with changing your mortgage provider, I hope you manage to sort something:hug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paisleylass Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Cheers adonna! I tried to switch to a BTL mortgage with another lender but no-one was interested as we were soon to be moving abroad. Noboday cares if it's a temporary move - we're on a 457 for heaven's sake! I don't see why you have to be resident in the country your house is let in, it's pathetic. Anyway, at the last minute I found Barclays advertised a BTL mortgage and the marketing blurb actually said it's suitable for people moving abroad. The product would actually be with Barclays International. The fees are naturally high, as well as the interest, but we'll review the situation in Sept and see whether it's even worth continuing with letting at all. I'm sure our tenant is fine, and we've been unlucky so far, but we do need to think about quitting the letting business if it's not even close to covering the mortgage. At least with FD we can offset savings against the interest and make unlimited overpayments - but we can't do that after a year if the house is still let. Switching mortgage just to keep letting could be far more expensive than making big overpayments and knocking the interest right down. Mind you, I don't know FD's policy on leaving a house empty! Some lenders are great - I worked with a guy who had a mortgage with Santander and they allowed him to let his flat for a small fee. I think RBS are quite good as well. Adonna, if you need to switch do it ASAP and don't mention any plans to move abroad! I'm too honest, that's my problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest30085 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Cheers adonna! I tried to switch to a BTL mortgage with another lender but no-one was interested as we were soon to be moving abroad. Noboday cares if it's a temporary move - we're on a 457 for heaven's sake! I don't see why you have to be resident in the country your house is let in, it's pathetic. Anyway, at the last minute I found Barclays advertised a BTL mortgage and the marketing blurb actually said it's suitable for people moving abroad. The product would actually be with Barclays International. The fees are naturally high, as well as the interest, but we'll review the situation in Sept and see whether it's even worth continuing with letting at all. I'm sure our tenant is fine, and we've been unlucky so far, but we do need to think about quitting the letting business if it's not even close to covering the mortgage. At least with FD we can offset savings against the interest and make unlimited overpayments - but we can't do that after a year if the house is still let. Switching mortgage just to keep letting could be far more expensive than making big overpayments and knocking the interest right down. Mind you, I don't know FD's policy on leaving a house empty! Some lenders are great - I worked with a guy who had a mortgage with Santander and they allowed him to let his flat for a small fee. I think RBS are quite good as well. Adonna, if you need to switch do it ASAP and don't mention any plans to move abroad! I'm too honest, that's my problem. Thanks for the advice PL, it is something I will look into. Gill x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pintpot Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Hiya - I have heard that so long as you have the correct insurance in place you really don't need to tell the mortgage company. How would they know you were renting it out? I wouldn't do this if I were you They *might* not find out you were renting it out, but they could easily find out - it only takes them one phone call they make to your house which is answered by a tenant, or one credit check they notice where you are using a different address, or anything really If you rent out your property without the consent of your lender you are breaking the terms of your loan and they can (and will, in my direct experience where I have helped people out in this position) cancel your mortgage. This means they will demand their money back within a set term, so you either have to find someone else prepared to lend on the property (and good luck doing that from the other side of the world when you've already got a black mark against you from the first lender), or you have to sell it (again good luck doing that from Aus in current market), or they may make moves to repossess It (letting a house without permission) is a high risk strategy if you're in the UK. If you're doing it from abroad it's close to madness IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janinewhiteley Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 I work for a mortgage provider. These post are very intersting, but please beware , Dont try to do anything behind the providers backs. You will come out worse off. What happens if the tenent doesnt pay rent?...Who would you turn to if they claimed squaters rights??? THE MORTGAGE PROVIDER...but if you have'nt told them , this could get difficult. Most offsett mortgage have a terms & conditions on them...E.G. you can rent the property out for 12 mths but after this you will have to revert to a standard b2l Mortgage. Some providers have tightened the string so tight they wont cosider any option. However , there are other banks (mainly the high street) who have always been in the market for mortgages , since the beginning of the credit crunch. You really need to sit down with a morgage adviser face 2 face , to discuss it openly , over the phone doesnt always work in your favor. Please dont tar us all with the same brush as it is not the Branches who set the rules its the people at the top. Regulations are getting tougher over the next 12 months as you may of heard on the news today. This is nothing new to the responsible lenders out their. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janinewhiteley Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Also....... dont presume the bank will automatically give you interest only. In todays climate most banks wont consider it unless you are either 1) in arrears 2) have a repayment vehicle in place...eg. pension/isa/endowment 3) over 75% loan to value if you are over 75% ltv, you probaly get turned down. if you dont have a repayment vehicle ...as above If you have missed a payment , some providers with help and suggest a hardship repayment plan, but not always on interest only , as the debt is not reducing but the housing market is...so the bank are putting you at risk of going in negative equity , further down the road. I really hope this helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paisleylass Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Most offsett mortgage have a terms & conditions on them...E.G. you can rent the property out for 12 mths but after this you will have to revert to a standard b2l Mortgage. I wish First Direct had a BTL product, it would make life easier. I know the sister bank HSBC does one, but when I approached them I was simply told it was not an option as it's only available to rich customers. Do you know where lenders generally lie re. leaving a property empty? I would have thought it was high risk, possibly higher than letting. But it might be our cheapest option due to offsetting/option to overpay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claireg Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 This is interesting. We contacted our mortgage lender to advise them that we are emigrating and that did we have to change our mortgage. I had a meeting with the Mortgage advisor, was completely up-front about it all. She was pretty useless and never explained anything just started doing quotes for BTL mortgages. When I asked her repeatedly if we "do actually legally" need to change our mortgage as we are going to rent out, she could not give me a straight answer and said that many people who leave may come back so they leave as is!! I left confused and not sure what to do. The BTL mortgage setup fee was about £1500 and the monthly repayment would shoot up from around £750 to £1100 approx which meant renting would be out of the question. She never once mentioned that we needed a letter of consent. Anyway, we have left our mortgage as is, have great tenants and we ensured that we got proper Landlord Insurance. Cheers Claire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janinewhiteley Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I wish First Direct had a BTL product, it would make life easier. I know the sister bank HSBC does one, but when I approached them I was simply told it was not an option as it's only available to rich customers. Do you know where lenders generally lie re. leaving a property empty? I would have thought it was high risk, possibly higher than letting. But it might be our cheapest option due to offsetting/option to overpay. HSBC were not very diplomatic... As long as you inform the bank and they are happy and the insurance company are happy , you should be ok to leave it empty. Your concern would be insurance , as not many providers will insure a property for more than 60 days unoccupied. send me a PM with mtg amout and reolistic current value and what posss rent you may get ..and what are your monthly payments. If i can help i will try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pintpot Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 This is interesting. We contacted our mortgage lender to advise them that we are emigrating and that did we have to change our mortgage. I had a meeting with the Mortgage advisor, was completely up-front about it all. She was pretty useless and never explained anything just started doing quotes for BTL mortgages. When I asked her repeatedly if we "do actually legally" need to change our mortgage as we are going to rent out, she could not give me a straight answer and said that many people who leave may come back so they leave as is!! I left confused and not sure what to do. The BTL mortgage setup fee was about £1500 and the monthly repayment would shoot up from around £750 to £1100 approx which meant renting would be out of the question. She never once mentioned that we needed a letter of consent. What you "legally need" from your lender varies depending on the terms of your contract with them and their policy. Your mortgage contract will almost certainly say that one of the conditions is that the property is lived in by you and your family, unless you agree otherwise with the lender This means you have to tell them (otherwise you are in breach of contract) Then it depends on the policy of the lender and perhaps in some cases personal circumstances. Some lenders insist on moving anyone who wants to let on to a BTL mortgage, others do not. Some allow you to stay on your original deal for a defined period and then move it on, some just let you continue with your original deal All a letter of consent does is provide you with written proof that they have allowed you to rent out (and therefore have complied with the terms of the contract) In your case, if you have approached the lender and told them of your intentions to let, and even asked them as to whether you *have* to change on to a BTL and they haven't said yes, I would say you have complied with the contract even if you don't have the written proof that a letter of consent would give you. To protect yourself, try and remember the date(s) of these conversations and if possible the name of the person you dealt with, then write that down. If you are challenged by your lender, you should then refer to that meeting you had with their mortgage advisor and set out clearly what happened, what you said and what the response was IME faced with a detailed account presented in a reasonable way, they will usually back down because it's your word against theirs and if you have a record (even if not proven) of what transpired and they don't, you are in a stronger position. They might then try and renegotiate, but at least you won't get beaten with a stick (or have your mortgage rug pulled from under you) for not telling them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fourcorners Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I am with C&G and just phoned them to ask their advice about letting the house out. They said fine no problem and sent me a form out. Then we got a letter saying our decision to let the house had been approved. No fees, no hike in interest. Our mortgage is more than our rent, we have about a 200 pound shortfall every month. But we can afford it and see the house as an investment. We're going to work hard over the next year or so to pay it down so that the rent covers the mortgage, then save up to buy another property to let out in the UK. So, I guess your decision about what to do will depend on how much you'll be earning in Oz, how much you're willing to make up the shortfall on your mortgage payments if you do rent it out. From what you've said, it sounds like you're in negative equity (if you would have to pay a further 12k if you sold it). So I would think the best option would be to rent out until the house is back in the black. Then re-appraise and either sell or continue letting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si T Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 Hi all Thanks for the comments. First a bit of clarification. I too worked for one of the large banks and certainly agree that the branch staff and other support staff are pretty blameless when it comes to the current situation and in my opinion the problem lies with the merchant and investment banks. The problem is that the term bankers has been used to include normal retail bank staff who are lucky to get a £1k bonus each year if at all. Also, I am absolutely 100% committed to finding a solution with my lender but as long as they are willing to compromise with me. If they take a hard nosed stance then they are not giving me any real options. The house is in negative equity and I would even consider selling at a loss and coming to an alternative arrangement with the bank for the difference but again this wholly depends upon whether they are willing to work with me. Repossession is the absolute last resort for me but not one I am going to shy away from if it comes to it. Lets put it another way. If I go to my lender and they are unwilling to take a path which gives them less of a financial advantage than they currently have then why should I approach it any differently? All I am currently asking them for is a short term compromise which will allow me to develop a proposal for the medium to long term that will benefit both us and them. As a responsible lender they then have a moral obligation to work with me to find a solution. Moral obligation is a two way street. After all people's circumstances change. Just as their insurance division's circumstances have changed and they are taking commercial decisions to push insurance costs up to cover the losses they have made in that and other areas. In terms of letting the house without informing the bank, this has been mentioned to me but it is not a path I would follow peronally, yet I make no judgement on those who may have. Thats their choice and this is mine, nothing more. I would rather be upfront with the lender and give them the opportunity to work with me from a position of mutual trust. If they then push me down the road of repossession then I can go down that path with a clear mind that I did everything I could to resolve the situation before it got to that point. Cheers all Si Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paisleylass Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Actually a large amount of blame for the current property issues goes to irresponsible high street mortgage lenders. I'm talking about the stupid 100%+ mortgages that were given out like sweeties a few years ago. My own hubby had one of these from Northern Rock, bless 'em. After 2 years he'd paid off maybe a couple of hundred quid and still had a LTV close to what he started with, say 105% maybe more - but luckily sold for a good whack more than he paid, so avoiding negative equity. If he'd held back from selling much longer he'd have been screwed. In no way would I blame any bank/building society staff on the shop floor, but someone somewhere in the high street banks thought it would be a good idea to lend far too much money to far too many people in order that they could live beyond their means. The blame is not all on investment/merchant banks - in fact the whole thing started in the USA with the subprime mortgage crisis. In a sense I can see why lenders are making it hard for residential homeowners to switch to letting - there could be a crazy situation where a huge proprtion of homeowners simply let out their home in order to move, and rent from another homeowner in the same dilemma! At the end of the day, two things are certain - whatever issues we have with our stupid house, it has not prevented us from pursuing our dream of moving abroad even if it is temporary, and we will not return prematurely because of it. All this will result in for First Direct, is that once forced to another lender to go full, legit BTL is that I will take along with the mortgage every other aspect of banking and have no further dealings with the HSBC group. Big deal, one cutomer lost. But many others will feel the same. I think lenders should respond to the market and, as Si T says, it's a 2 way street. A mechanism for keeping our product but paying a reasonable fee in recognition of the additional risk of letting would be great, rather than the hassle of having to get a whole new mortgage. Oh, I could rant all day about this, but am already depressed again so will go do some shopping instead ;o) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si T Posted December 23, 2011 Author Share Posted December 23, 2011 Actually a large amount of blame for the current property issues goes to irresponsible high street mortgage lenders. I'm talking about the stupid 100%+ mortgages that were given out like sweeties a few years ago. My own hubby had one of these from Northern Rock, bless 'em. After 2 years he'd paid off maybe a couple of hundred quid and still had a LTV close to what he started with, say 105% maybe more - but luckily sold for a good whack more than he paid, so avoiding negative equity. If he'd held back from selling much longer he'd have been screwed. In no way would I blame any bank/building society staff on the shop floor, but someone somewhere in the high street banks thought it would be a good idea to lend far too much money to far too many people in order that they could live beyond their means. The blame is not all on investment/merchant banks - in fact the whole thing started in the USA with the subprime mortgage crisis. In a sense I can see why lenders are making it hard for residential homeowners to switch to letting - there could be a crazy situation where a huge proprtion of homeowners simply let out their home in order to move, and rent from another homeowner in the same dilemma! At the end of the day, two things are certain - whatever issues we have with our stupid house, it has not prevented us from pursuing our dream of moving abroad even if it is temporary, and we will not return prematurely because of it. All this will result in for First Direct, is that once forced to another lender to go full, legit BTL is that I will take along with the mortgage every other aspect of banking and have no further dealings with the HSBC group. Big deal, one cutomer lost. But many others will feel the same. I think lenders should respond to the market and, as Si T says, it's a 2 way street. A mechanism for keeping our product but paying a reasonable fee in recognition of the additional risk of letting would be great, rather than the hassle of having to get a whole new mortgage. Oh, I could rant all day about this, but am already depressed again so will go do some shopping instead ;o) To a certain degree the High Street Banks were irresponsible in their lending. However, nobody seems to mention the customers who were using the equity in their houses to fund Audi A4 soft tops and Carribean holidays. Nobody held a gun to their heads. Those customers who were genuine and got into trouble through no real fault of their own should have had more support but those who got sucked into consumerism have to take a look at themselves instead of simply blaming the bankers. From an investment/merchant bank perspective the reason they had a big say in what went on was that they were taking existing sub prime assets and selling them on to other banks then using the funds to supply more loans and on and on and on. The whole situation then had the sand foundation of the sub prime market. Although the failure of the sub prime market started in the USA, the UK had a reasonably sized sub prime mortgage market of its own and it could just as easily have started here. There is a lot of blame to go around and the High Street Banks are far from blameless but customers sucked into keeping up with the Jones's also have to take a share. But that wouldn't sell newspapers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 keep your name on the council tax and rent it out inclusive of the council rates. Don't tell the morgage company....there are still a few options. Keep it, you will be glad of it in 4 years time when the Oz $ is less favourable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Fabricator Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 To a certain degree the High Street Banks were irresponsible in their lending. However, nobody seems to mention the customers who were using the equity in their houses to fund Audi A4 soft tops and Carribean holidays. Nobody held a gun to their heads. Those customers who were genuine and got into trouble through no real fault of their own should have had more support but those who got sucked into consumerism have to take a look at themselves instead of simply blaming the bankers. Totally agree . I bought my house at the absoloute peak of the boom , got a house as much as " i " could afford not what the banks were willing to lend me , if id have taken what they offered i would have re possesed years ago or certainly been screewed now and would haveto go bancrupt to get to oz, At the same time a couple i know owed £35.000 on their 3 bed semi , re mortgaged 3 times for cars , hollidays and party !!!!!!!! they now owe £185 000 on a house valued at £165.000 , they realy cant complain about the state of things cos it was them that had the asset and decided to fritter it away . lee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bensdad Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Same here for me in the end spoke to the mortgage company and basically told them if they didn't give me an interest only mortgage and permission to rent I would give them the keys back. I bought my house for 186k and it's now worth 149k so I'd lost my deposit and was in neg eq of 15k. After about a week they changed the mortgage to buy to purchase and let me remortgage to interest only and it cost me £299 in total. Personaly I don't think the bank would want your house back so be firm with them whats the worst can happen? Loving Fremantle! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.