morgage lenders consent to let fee

[mandimoo]

i posted this in another section, before i found this section...
i got my mortgage 11 years ago. last year i moved in with my boyfriend and commenced doing my house up so i could rent it out. my mortgage provider is now telling me i have to ask their permission and they will charge me �225 if they give their consent. my query is, i did NOT buy this property with the intention to let. I have still paid the mortgage whilst not living there and will continue to do so, regardless of whether i have tennant this will continue. i really dont want to pay them this consent to let fee, i just cant get my head around why I should have to when the mortgage payments are not reliant on having a tennant. also i have a guarantor, who has undertook to keep up the payments if i fail to and they are completely comfortable with my decision. i reckon if i have the guarantor permission, the lender should just accept it.

[redcrx]

whilst you have a mortgage on the property the mortgage company own a part of it and do have to giver permission for you to let it.

Some charge a fee and keep mortgage payments the same, others increase the interest rates but either way you still need permission.

You could, of course, not tell them and rent it out anyway but thats a risk that youll have to take.

also you will need to make sure your insurance company know that youre not living there as well.

[Fay Mousse]

It is a condition of most standard mortgages that only the mortgagee and family live in the property and it is not let out. Read your mortgage contract - it will also say you need to ask their permission to rent it out.

This is simply because if you default on your mortgage it is very much harder to repossess the property if there are tenants living in it. Yes, you have a guarantor but this does not mean the mortgage company can't be in a position to repossess.

The mortgage company is in the right in the instance. If you are not happy you can always go to another mortgage company.

Remember you will also need to inform your insurance company that the house is rented out - your insurance will probably go up as well.

[Twenty20]

As the others say, you could do it without telling them, there is only a small chance that they may find out.

You will need landlords insurance however which, I think, is actually cheaper than normal insurance as you are only in effect insuring the building and not contents.

I'm puzzled though that you imply that you have a guarantor for your mortgage? So, the bank has a charge on the property and a guarantor in place? Not that it has anything to do with your question but I had never heard of that before. Or do you meant a guarantor for the rent?

[Fay Mousse]

Twenty20

Guarantor mortgages are out there:

http://tinyurl.com/6znv4z

[Twenty20]

Well, well, never heard of them before! No wonder the mortgage lenders got in a mess lending to people who couldn't afford the repayments.

Sorry to get off topic mandimoo.

[mandimoo]

ah, i never thought about the possibility that they could not reposess if there was a tennant in situ. probably cos the thought of not paying it never entered my head! if only they had explained things like this. i was just told i had to pay and when i asked for explanation i was told 'you just have to', without really justifying the reasons. i feel a bit better about it now. thanks for replies x