Lender accuses me of breaching mortgage conditions?

Reply to the comment left by Just Be Happy at 19/06/2026 – 11:11
The Google AI is wrong. Its bias is to tell you what you want ot hear.

Three unrelated people in one property never form one household in law, whatever the tenancy type (and, of course, ASTs no longer exist). See the link to the Government definition in a comment above.

There are plenty of lenders that don’t mind. For example when I needed a licence in Newham for 5 unrelated sharers BM let me keep my existing mortgage that I had taken out on 2006. The house was on two levels so didn’t need a licence under the traditional rules that were for three storey houses.

I have have lots of additional licences with different lenders such as Barclays, Godiva, tmw and others and none of them have ever worried about it as long as it was only additional licencing.

Who is your lender?

Reply to the comment left by Urban Landlord at 21/06/2026 – 09:54

Thanks for your reply. The lender is Hinckley & Rugby.

We have been caught out on this HMO obsession. 2 bed flat on standard AST, always has been. Then a couple move in and want a friend to join for the other room to share costs. No problem,. Until they wanted to ALL sign the agreement. If one person signed and they had an internal agreement between themselves then fine. But because they all signed, the council instantly claimed HMO. HMO means a different licence, more money and a host of changes to the property to suit HMO requirements. Fire doors internally, window restrictors, interconnected smoke and heat alarms, changes to locks, notices on wall including copy of licence, etc. This is a Victorian house conversion not a block of flats. Fortunately our mortgage company was fine as long as the mortgage is paid. If not threaten to take the mortgage elsewhere, they usually compromise then.

Reply to the comment left by Richard Dean at 21/06/2026 – 10:24
is there anything in the terms and conditions about the number of occupants/households or anything written in about HMOs or “single family tenancy” only? Did they have any knowledge of how the property was let previously? They seem stricter then a lot of others

Reply to the comment left by Bryan at https://www.property118.com/lender-accuses-me-of-breaching-mortgage-conditions/comment-page-2/#comment-206343“
; rel=”ugc”>11:16
Its nothing to do with whether they sign or are there just as a permanent guest, The definition of an HMO refers to occupants or residents. Its not concerned about their legal status. The moment they moved the friend in it became an HMO and you agreed, so became liable.

Reply to the comment left by Urban Landlord at 22/06/2026 – 11:22

Nothing about single families only, but H&R’s conditions in 2016 (when the mortgages were taken out) bans “multiple tenancies (including for the avoidance of doubt houses of multiple occupation)”. Each AST is for a single tenancy with a named lead tenant, but I suspect the ‘avoidance of doubt’ clause is what they’re banking on. Still waiting to see how my broker gets on with the issue.

Reply to the comment left by Urban Landlord at 22/06/2026 – 11:22

Glad to say that my excellent broker Darren Small of eddge mortgages has spoken to H&R and the threat of a breach has been lifted. It seems Darren managed to convince the lending manager that whatever councils choose to call a tenancy of this kind (and in so doing jack up the licence fee), the fundamental risk profile has not changed. Hats off to H&R for taking a pragmatic view.

Reply to the comment left by Richard Dean at 25/06/2026 – 15:24
As I said, they make ut up as they go along. Congratulations.

Reply to the comment left by Richard Dean at 25/06/2026 – 15:24
Good news