I think people have already spoke about this. But I have been amazed by this building society. I switched my mortgage from Natwest (I was paying around £495 per month) to nationwide and my monthly payments have dropped to £345 and I'm paying 1.24%!! Which could knock 11 years off my mortgage.
If you haven't already check you're not paying more than you should!
Top comments
sniperpenguin
17 Feb 1712#7
Be careful of using Nationwide if you ever want to consider letting out your property in the future.
There is a component called "Consent to Let" whereby you ask permission from your lender to rent out your property for a short time (say you move away, or life event, or simply move and want to keep the existing property). It is used regularly, especially if you dont yet have enough equity to move to a BTL mortgage.
Usual practise is the bank to either:
1. say yes in exchange for caveats (say, no DSS etc)
2. charge a nominal fee for admin (say £100) and issue you a cert. Some do it free.
Nationwide, on the other hand, throw a 1% penalty onto your mortgage rate for consent to let, and can cost thousands..... Beware.
jrw to sniperpenguin
17 Feb 174#14
Just let it out anyway
1. Likelihood is they won't find out (I rented mine out and got a new house with another mortgage through Nationwide and at no point was it ever questioned)
2. If they did find out they wouldn't care. They may send you a letter as my mate did and he just politely asked them what they wanted him to do as he said he couldn't afford a BTL mortgage, nor the 1% price hike. They just said nothing
In respect of the other comment @M_z - you have no idea. Like myself there are a lot of people that suffered from the market crash in March 2007 (I bought my house in Feb 2007) and when trying to sell in April 2012 the market was totally dead but needed to move. After 10 months i rented it out. Put it up to let and it was let within 2hours of going on the market. I kept it for 2 years until the market picked up and sold in June 2015 and managed to break even on it.
So thats why.
Kamilione
17 Feb 173#40
I moved my mortgage recently from TSB to Nationwide, but kept the same monthly payment and instead decreased the term from 10 to 9 years + £250 one-off reward for taking the mortgage and no fee - really happy with this move so far.
marathonic
17 Feb 173#19
What great advice.
The worst case scenario isn't really going to hinder you is it? I mean, the worst case scenario is that a tenant burns the house to the ground and your insurance won't cover you due to the small print buried deep in a lot of landlord house insurance policies regarding the requirement that you MUST have a BTL mortgage or consent to let.
All comments (57)
cliosport65
17 Feb 171#1
11 years :confused:
ArthurDent1 to cliosport65
17 Feb 17#15
If they can knock 11 years off my mortgage that'd be awesome - I'd get all of the last 2 years' payments back!
Deedie
17 Feb 17#2
I don't see any mortgages at 1.24%
Franken to Deedie
17 Feb 171#3
There's plenty of fixed rates there at 1.19% and 1.24%.
razk2k16 to Deedie
17 Feb 171#8
It depends on how much you have left and how much your house is worth
ArthurDent1 to Deedie
17 Feb 173#18
Base rate plus 0.99% for the first 2 years only. Plus a £999 fee. Needs to be quite a big mortgage to justify that fee for such a short term.
bbsutton
17 Feb 173#4
i am more intrigued by the fact you are paying £345 :smile: for your mortgage , where do you live :smile:
samani
17 Feb 171#5
The lower % products have higher fees, usually £999
Deedie
17 Feb 17#6
I see them now. had the no fee option ticked, so they didn't show up as there is £1000 fees for those mortgages
sniperpenguin
17 Feb 1712#7
Be careful of using Nationwide if you ever want to consider letting out your property in the future.
There is a component called "Consent to Let" whereby you ask permission from your lender to rent out your property for a short time (say you move away, or life event, or simply move and want to keep the existing property). It is used regularly, especially if you dont yet have enough equity to move to a BTL mortgage.
Usual practise is the bank to either:
1. say yes in exchange for caveats (say, no DSS etc)
2. charge a nominal fee for admin (say £100) and issue you a cert. Some do it free.
Nationwide, on the other hand, throw a 1% penalty onto your mortgage rate for consent to let, and can cost thousands..... Beware.
M_z to sniperpenguin
17 Feb 173#12
So their mortgages are to fund the purchase of a house you want to actually live in, otherwise you get a 1% penalty? Don't see a problem with that myself. If "you dont yet have enough equity to move to a BTL mortgage" you probably shouldn't be a landlord.
jrw to sniperpenguin
17 Feb 174#14
Just let it out anyway
1. Likelihood is they won't find out (I rented mine out and got a new house with another mortgage through Nationwide and at no point was it ever questioned)
2. If they did find out they wouldn't care. They may send you a letter as my mate did and he just politely asked them what they wanted him to do as he said he couldn't afford a BTL mortgage, nor the 1% price hike. They just said nothing
In respect of the other comment @M_z - you have no idea. Like myself there are a lot of people that suffered from the market crash in March 2007 (I bought my house in Feb 2007) and when trying to sell in April 2012 the market was totally dead but needed to move. After 10 months i rented it out. Put it up to let and it was let within 2hours of going on the market. I kept it for 2 years until the market picked up and sold in June 2015 and managed to break even on it.
So thats why.
razk2k16
17 Feb 171#9
Haha I was paying around 500 for it. I like near Oldham! Houses are decent price. Live in a 3 bed semi
a6unx
17 Feb 17#10
I got my HSBC mortgage to provide me with a Consent to Let letter but they were helpful and friendly and did that with no additional penalty or fee.
mcguire85
17 Feb 172#11
I would of told this $&&& to $&$& off. Probably doesn't have a bit of equity to his name
razk2k16
17 Feb 17#13
Lol my house is worth 200k and I have 90k left on mortgage. So there is equity :stuck_out_tongue:
coco2007
17 Feb 17#16
£999 fee :confused:
sniperpenguin
17 Feb 171#17
Look up the term "Accidental Landlord" - You may find it very enlightening ....
marathonic
17 Feb 173#19
What great advice.
The worst case scenario isn't really going to hinder you is it? I mean, the worst case scenario is that a tenant burns the house to the ground and your insurance won't cover you due to the small print buried deep in a lot of landlord house insurance policies regarding the requirement that you MUST have a BTL mortgage or consent to let.
mcguire85
17 Feb 17#20
It was aimed at the other comment. How can someone say... intrigued to how u are only paying 345 how the &&&&& is it their business what uv paid n owed etc.
M_z
17 Feb 17#21
I suppose I am thinking more of the tenants of a landlord, accidental or otherwise, who hasn't got the funds to cover emergency repairs etc etc, or worse still, cant afford the mortgage and the house gets repossessed.
M_z
17 Feb 172#22
If I have 'no idea', what does that make you? Advising people that fraud is OK, because they will probably get away with it like your mate did?
kooks65
17 Feb 172#23
I've just paid off my mortgage and it was with Nationwide, the beauty with them is that you can pay off a bit extra each month and get rid of it quicker :smiley:.
tectonic80 to kooks65
17 Feb 172#34
Not really the 'beauty of nationwide'. Since some time ago, all lenders have to allow up to 10% overpayments on fixed rate mortgages
cliosport65 to kooks65
18 Feb 17#51
you can overpay with most mortgages :wink:
jrw
17 Feb 171#24
It isn't fraud. Fraud would be telling them you aren't letting it if they asked you if they were. As long as they are getting their money every month and you have landlords insurance they do not care. It is simply a T&C to put people off doing this through choice but understand what an 'accidental landlord' is. In fact i went to nationwide for two different things and spoke to a financial and a mortgage adviser and they were well aware that I had two mortgages and the one house was let.
Also, not sure what a consent to let or BTL mortgage has to do with Landlords insurance with covers the building and tenants negligence. When i took the insurance out they didn't even ask if i had a mortgage, i volunteered the information and asked if it affected the policy.. Answer was no as its a policy to cover the building (bricks and mortar with the option for limited contents such as carpets), tenant negligence and to cover the landlord in the event of liability such as gas leak, explosion etc.
shindigger
17 Feb 172#25
Worst TV ads ever.
Cracking on that they "care" whilst being complicit in ramping the price of shelter to stratospheric levels.
Not a building society.
They get free printed cash from central government and charge interest on it, and call it a business.
They no longer need savers money to run their operation.
They simply have no use for it. Why would they? When the free printed money machine is banging it out 24/7.
Here is the news. Nationwide do not "care" about you, and they certainly wont "Keep You Safe".
**** off.
jrw to shindigger
17 Feb 171#27
Are you sure you mean Nationwide? Free government money?
ArthurDent1 to shindigger
17 Feb 171#33
With the demise of Co-op bank Nationwide are now the most ethical option for high street/internet banking. They're still entirely owned by their customers (and likely to remain that way forever, as a new customer part of the agreement you sign is that if they ever float on the stock market all the profits from the sale of share will be given to charity - so they're safe from carpet-baggers destroying them like they did every other building society).
marathonic
17 Feb 171#26
Your whole post revolves around the misconception that, as long as you don't lie to an insurance company in response to the limited amount of questions they ask, you're good. This is not the case.
Whether or not you have a BTL mortgage or consent to let would almost certainly be considered a material fact and non-disclosure could lead to the policy being invalid and claims being declined.
Personally, I've never saw an actual claim from someone in this position, which is the only way of testing whether an insurer would consider this a material fact and, indeed, may differ between insurers.
At a high level, I'd guess that most insurers would offer insurance, regardless of CTL or BTL status. Therefore, I'd think that it wouldn't fall under the "may affect the insurer's decision to grant the insured a policy of insurance" definition given above.
However, I would ALWAYS tell the lender whether or not I have CTL. If they don't have a problem, they'll tell you. If they do, then it does indeed fall under the above definition and claims may well be declined.
marathonic
17 Feb 171#28
This is totally untrue. A lender may, at their discretion, grant you Consent to Let.
However, to say that they don't care whether you are letting the property is untrue. There are a whole host of reasons BTL mortgages are more expensive than residential mortgages - one of which I'll delve into further.
A recession that results in job losses results in a lot of people missing mortgage payments. Past experience shows that the mortgages of rental properties will experience the higher percentage of defaults in such a scenario. Such defaults can result in a requirement for repossession.
Taking the above into consideration, the lender that has unwittingly advanced you funds for a rental property as opposed to your own home now needs to deal with the legal requirements of repossessing a property in which a tenant resides, together with all their associated legal rights - which are constantly evolving.
red23
17 Feb 17#29
fixed in to my 3.29% 2 years ago :disappointed:
ArthurDent1 to red23
17 Feb 17#32
Don't feel bad, I rejected an offer from First Direct for an offset mortgage which would have fixed my mortgage and effectively a £50,000 overdraft at base rate plus 0.5% for the term of my mortgage. At the time I was on a discount rate with another 6 months to run so thought I'd sign up for it at the end of my current deal.
About a fortnight later the entire Western world's banking system collapsed and there has never been an offer anything like that good again.
dannyshep
17 Feb 171#30
I pay 268 :smiley: live up norf it's cheaper
FREEZIN_WOLF
17 Feb 17#31
What an idiotic comment.
The poster could have a released equity, could have bought years ago or any number of other reasons.
Your comment is extremely naive.
MarioMan
17 Feb 17#35
Where are your houses in London? Or elsewhere?
Thanks
AnnaMak
17 Feb 171#36
Just did a calculation, could potentially be saving near £200 a month. Roll on next 6 months when current deal finishes!!
cliosport65 to AnnaMak
18 Feb 17#52
Interest rate would have gone up by then :smile:
MarioMan
17 Feb 17#37
One thing I am also unsure of
Assuming the BTL ALREADY has a job and is second house is a BTL. With the rental income would that not be more money therefore less risk and should get a lower %??
Manly69
17 Feb 17#38
HSBC have cheaper interest rates for me on 5 year fix with no fees. 2.34% compared to Nationwide 2.49%
focaltucker
17 Feb 172#39
What's with the buy to let squabble? This deal is nothing to do with buy to let.
Your monthly repayments aren't really 345 though are they. With 1000 fee every 2 years that's 40 quid a month extra split over the term of discount.
Fees like this are a joke and make a mockery of the supposed rate because you are subsidising the discount with an up front lump sum.
Have a look at hsbc. 5 years fixed at 1.94 with zero fees.
Unless the mortgage is for a massive amount, that will always work out far cheaper in total.
stave84 to focaltucker
18 Feb 17#42
The key as you note is to consider both. I worked out the "total over 24 months including fees" for all offerings and a high fee low rate worked out £1000 cheaper over that time. The next time (our current mortgage), a zero fee was actually cheaper in the long run.
It's like leasing a car, total cost matters not he headline grabbing number they choose to show you.
Kamilione
17 Feb 173#40
I moved my mortgage recently from TSB to Nationwide, but kept the same monthly payment and instead decreased the term from 10 to 9 years + £250 one-off reward for taking the mortgage and no fee - really happy with this move so far.
ArthurDent1
18 Feb 17#41
Worth looking at a comparison with other providers - although Nationwide's deals look OK, I can save more with HSBC or First Direct according to MSE. Your circumstances are probably different (my mortgage is quite small with less than 10 years left).
uberrimae fidei applies as the person letting out their house is considered to be a business, not a consumer?
bobzuruncle
18 Feb 171#44
uberrimae fidei - wtf?? :confused:
faddy54 to bobzuruncle
18 Feb 17#46
Defined in marathonic's post
buzzard
18 Feb 17#45
Nationwide have recently told savers that rates are dropping - expect an outflow of money and for these rates to not be available for very long.
However I wouldnt personally worry too much about the prospect that you may have to move out and let unless that is a possibility in the next couple of years. Can always move your mortgage elsewhere later.
GeoDogger
18 Feb 17#47
how about btl rates?
TheGuyWhoNeverGetsSamples
18 Feb 17#48
How about not buy stuff you cant afford
lookatmywadd
18 Feb 17#49
"Consent to Let" - How is it their business and why do they care where the money comes from to repay the mortgage? Why don't they just print more money and pay themselves for that matter?
marathonic to lookatmywadd
18 Feb 17#50
It's their business because mortgages secured against rental properties are more risky. A banks business model is to lend at as high a rate as possible with as little risk as possible. With a rental property:
If the landlord loses their job, they're more likely to take the rent but prioritise other bills over the mortgage;
If the tenant loses their job, the landlord could face a period in excess of a year where the tenant refuses to vacate the property whilst they do not pay rent. Many landlords post on forums about being unable to afford repairs to properties, never mind cover void periods in rent (and this is more prolific among these so-called 'accidental landlords' who are using residential mortgages as opposed to BTL mortgages to fund the house purchase);
If a lender eventually wants to repossess the property, they don't want to have to deal with a whole plethora of tenants rights;
There are other reasons but the above are the most obvious. Surely you realise that there's a reason that BTL mortgages are more expensive than residential? [hint: it's to cover the additional risks posed by such mortgages]
AnnaMak
18 Feb 17#53
doubt that, rates are due to go down :stuck_out_tongue:
bbsutton
20 Feb 17#54
its a joke,
dont get yourself in a knot over it...
bbsutton
22 Feb 17#55
i really need to move, our mortgage is killing us ..sigh
cjdean1983
25 Feb 17#56
we're going to rent our home and move to Switzerland. the advice from sniper penguin is extremely helpful for us as we are looking to remortgage in April.
ForestGrump
8 Mar 17#57
That's a great deal, won't be needing it though as mortgage free since Monday :wink:
![Fresh Breakfast Meat Box (Using code) @ Campbells Meat [Haggis / Lorne Sausage / Bacon / Black Pudding & More]](/images/topics/208684_1.jpg)
![[Xbox One] Q. u. b. e: Director's Cut on Deals with Gold](/images/topics/208716_1.jpg)
Opening post
If you haven't already check you're not paying more than you should!
Top comments
There is a component called "Consent to Let" whereby you ask permission from your lender to rent out your property for a short time (say you move away, or life event, or simply move and want to keep the existing property). It is used regularly, especially if you dont yet have enough equity to move to a BTL mortgage.
Usual practise is the bank to either:
1. say yes in exchange for caveats (say, no DSS etc)
2. charge a nominal fee for admin (say £100) and issue you a cert. Some do it free.
Nationwide, on the other hand, throw a 1% penalty onto your mortgage rate for consent to let, and can cost thousands..... Beware.
1. Likelihood is they won't find out (I rented mine out and got a new house with another mortgage through Nationwide and at no point was it ever questioned)
2. If they did find out they wouldn't care. They may send you a letter as my mate did and he just politely asked them what they wanted him to do as he said he couldn't afford a BTL mortgage, nor the 1% price hike. They just said nothing
In respect of the other comment @M_z - you have no idea. Like myself there are a lot of people that suffered from the market crash in March 2007 (I bought my house in Feb 2007) and when trying to sell in April 2012 the market was totally dead but needed to move. After 10 months i rented it out. Put it up to let and it was let within 2hours of going on the market. I kept it for 2 years until the market picked up and sold in June 2015 and managed to break even on it.
So thats why.
The worst case scenario isn't really going to hinder you is it? I mean, the worst case scenario is that a tenant burns the house to the ground and your insurance won't cover you due to the small print buried deep in a lot of landlord house insurance policies regarding the requirement that you MUST have a BTL mortgage or consent to let.
All comments (57)
There is a component called "Consent to Let" whereby you ask permission from your lender to rent out your property for a short time (say you move away, or life event, or simply move and want to keep the existing property). It is used regularly, especially if you dont yet have enough equity to move to a BTL mortgage.
Usual practise is the bank to either:
1. say yes in exchange for caveats (say, no DSS etc)
2. charge a nominal fee for admin (say £100) and issue you a cert. Some do it free.
Nationwide, on the other hand, throw a 1% penalty onto your mortgage rate for consent to let, and can cost thousands..... Beware.
1. Likelihood is they won't find out (I rented mine out and got a new house with another mortgage through Nationwide and at no point was it ever questioned)
2. If they did find out they wouldn't care. They may send you a letter as my mate did and he just politely asked them what they wanted him to do as he said he couldn't afford a BTL mortgage, nor the 1% price hike. They just said nothing
In respect of the other comment @M_z - you have no idea. Like myself there are a lot of people that suffered from the market crash in March 2007 (I bought my house in Feb 2007) and when trying to sell in April 2012 the market was totally dead but needed to move. After 10 months i rented it out. Put it up to let and it was let within 2hours of going on the market. I kept it for 2 years until the market picked up and sold in June 2015 and managed to break even on it.
So thats why.
Lol my house is worth 200k and I have 90k left on mortgage. So there is equity :stuck_out_tongue:
The worst case scenario isn't really going to hinder you is it? I mean, the worst case scenario is that a tenant burns the house to the ground and your insurance won't cover you due to the small print buried deep in a lot of landlord house insurance policies regarding the requirement that you MUST have a BTL mortgage or consent to let.
Also, not sure what a consent to let or BTL mortgage has to do with Landlords insurance with covers the building and tenants negligence. When i took the insurance out they didn't even ask if i had a mortgage, i volunteered the information and asked if it affected the policy.. Answer was no as its a policy to cover the building (bricks and mortar with the option for limited contents such as carpets), tenant negligence and to cover the landlord in the event of liability such as gas leak, explosion etc.
Cracking on that they "care" whilst being complicit in ramping the price of shelter to stratospheric levels.
Not a building society.
They get free printed cash from central government and charge interest on it, and call it a business.
They no longer need savers money to run their operation.
They simply have no use for it. Why would they? When the free printed money machine is banging it out 24/7.
Here is the news. Nationwide do not "care" about you, and they certainly wont "Keep You Safe".
**** off.
Whether or not you have a BTL mortgage or consent to let would almost certainly be considered a material fact and non-disclosure could lead to the policy being invalid and claims being declined.
Personally, I've never saw an actual claim from someone in this position, which is the only way of testing whether an insurer would consider this a material fact and, indeed, may differ between insurers.
At a high level, I'd guess that most insurers would offer insurance, regardless of CTL or BTL status. Therefore, I'd think that it wouldn't fall under the "may affect the insurer's decision to grant the insured a policy of insurance" definition given above.
However, I would ALWAYS tell the lender whether or not I have CTL. If they don't have a problem, they'll tell you. If they do, then it does indeed fall under the above definition and claims may well be declined.
However, to say that they don't care whether you are letting the property is untrue. There are a whole host of reasons BTL mortgages are more expensive than residential mortgages - one of which I'll delve into further.
A recession that results in job losses results in a lot of people missing mortgage payments. Past experience shows that the mortgages of rental properties will experience the higher percentage of defaults in such a scenario. Such defaults can result in a requirement for repossession.
Taking the above into consideration, the lender that has unwittingly advanced you funds for a rental property as opposed to your own home now needs to deal with the legal requirements of repossessing a property in which a tenant resides, together with all their associated legal rights - which are constantly evolving.
About a fortnight later the entire Western world's banking system collapsed and there has never been an offer anything like that good again.
The poster could have a released equity, could have bought years ago or any number of other reasons.
Your comment is extremely naive.
Thanks
Assuming the BTL ALREADY has a job and is second house is a BTL. With the rental income would that not be more money therefore less risk and should get a lower %??
Your monthly repayments aren't really 345 though are they. With 1000 fee every 2 years that's 40 quid a month extra split over the term of discount.
Fees like this are a joke and make a mockery of the supposed rate because you are subsidising the discount with an up front lump sum.
Have a look at hsbc. 5 years fixed at 1.94 with zero fees.
Unless the mortgage is for a massive amount, that will always work out far cheaper in total.
It's like leasing a car, total cost matters not he headline grabbing number they choose to show you.
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/mortgages/best-buys/
However I wouldnt personally worry too much about the prospect that you may have to move out and let unless that is a possibility in the next couple of years. Can always move your mortgage elsewhere later.
If the landlord loses their job, they're more likely to take the rent but prioritise other bills over the mortgage;
If the tenant loses their job, the landlord could face a period in excess of a year where the tenant refuses to vacate the property whilst they do not pay rent. Many landlords post on forums about being unable to afford repairs to properties, never mind cover void periods in rent (and this is more prolific among these so-called 'accidental landlords' who are using residential mortgages as opposed to BTL mortgages to fund the house purchase);
If a lender eventually wants to repossess the property, they don't want to have to deal with a whole plethora of tenants rights;
There are other reasons but the above are the most obvious. Surely you realise that there's a reason that BTL mortgages are more expensive than residential? [hint: it's to cover the additional risks posed by such mortgages]
dont get yourself in a knot over it...