Lending Merry-go-round – READERS QUESTION

Lending Merry-go-round – READERS QUESTION

16:35 PM, 22nd January 2013, About 11 years ago 11

Text Size

Lending Merry Go RoundI wonder if any of ‘s readers have experienced the same problems as I have in arranging a mortgage for a flat which is already occupied on a short term assured tenancy agreement.

Everything is in place and we had an offer from The Mortgage Works , then the problems started.

The Mortgage works offer is conditional on the tenants signing a new assured tenancy agreement

The vendors won’t let us approach the existing tenants .

The Mortgage Works then say that an undertaking from the solicitors that a new tenancy will be signed after completion is OK.

The solicitors then say that they can’t give that undertaking as they may not be able to persuade the tenants to sign.

The tenants in question have already paid a years rent in advance on which the balance and the deposit will be handed to us on completion so there is no question of them not paying.

The Mortgage Works say that they only usually lend on empty properties , not one with existing tenants..Has anybody obtained a mortgage from them on a tenanted property?.

Thanks in advance

A Briggs

Share This Article


13:31 PM, 23rd January 2013, About 11 years ago

What the solicitor says is correct as they can't control the signing of the tenancy agreement.Lending on empty properties means that the millions of pounds they do each year on remortgages is to empty houses. That's incorrect.

Talk to your broker they should be able to speak to TMW to come up with a solution. I'm with TMW tomorrow so can see what they suggest if you want?

Andrew Briggs

5:47 AM, 24th January 2013, About 11 years ago

Thanks Simon
We are the brokers in this case and have been in almost daily correspondence with the Mortgage Works, it doesnt help that our BDM is on long term sickness leave.I eventually got a response by writing to the CEO of Nationwide plus the Intermediary , Customer experience and
Mortgage Directors.We thought that the matter had been resolved when they came up with this condition.If you can mention this to TMW then I would be most grateful.
I intend to complain (again!) but its like talking to a brick wall.

Sam Wong

7:18 AM, 27th January 2013, About 11 years ago

Did you ask what purpose the condition serves ?

Whats wrong with the existing tenancy ?

Isnt a tenanted property better security for the lender than an empty property which may not be in a lettable condition ?

Difficult to tackle the problem if you dont know the reason for the condition.


12:40 PM, 27th January 2013, About 11 years ago

We live in a free country so you are entitled to speak to or send a letter to the tenant to explain your situation. You don't need permission from the vendor to do this so surely a signed letter from the tenant outlining the situation you described re the years upfront payment etc would suffice.

In respect of TMW, just recently we have had problems with them too. We also had a different problem with another lender and although very different to yours it too was an impossible catch 22 situation, which in the end left us no other option than to pull out of the transaction which cost us nearly £2000 in fees and associated costs.

What is wrong with mortgage lenders at present? Do they want to do business with us or are they just using the money provided by the government (to get the housing market moving again) to settle their own bad debts?? Somebody really needs to sort this situation out as we have found it ever increasingly harder to obtain funds to continue developing our property investments. This must be strangling the life out of the whole PRS if others like yourself are faced with similar barriers to obtaining money for investment.

Good luck!

Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118

13:41 PM, 27th January 2013, About 11 years ago

I have just had an awful thought and I really hope I'm wrong. However, it does appear that the vendor is trying to conceal something here. Could it be that TMW are making things difficult because they suspect this deal is an illegal Sale and Rent Back transaction? Have you checked Land Registry to see who owns the property, how long they have owned it for and who the previous owner was? Could it be that the tenant is the former owner and that TMW have done this checks and come to the same conclusion?

I think DC's idea of writing to the vendor is a VERY good one.

I wish you well with this and hope that I'm wrong but I can't think of another logical explanation.

Mary Latham

14:48 PM, 27th January 2013, About 11 years ago

In my opinion the lenders are right to be concerned

Have you seen the Tenancy Agreement?

The landlord has taken a Premium this means that the “ rent period” is one year

When does the existing tenancy end?

Is it an AST or a Company Let?

Supposing tenancy ends at the end of March. You take ownership at the beginning of February. You decide that you do not want these tenant to remain in the property. You would serve a Section 21 but the earliest date that you could ask for Possession would be the end of March 2014

I know taking rent in advance (a Premium) looks like a good option but it is fraught with problems. The lender is obviously concerned about their position if they need to repossess.

Follow me on Twitter@landlordtweets

20:39 PM, 6th February 2013, About 11 years ago

I had a long and dirty fight with TMW over their incompetence and intransigence over an application for the Light Refurbishment product, which led eventually to the Ombudsman, where I lost my case. If I can avoid ever doing business with them again without cutting off my nose to spite my face, I shall.

21:14 PM, 7th February 2013, About 11 years ago

Are you aware of the Appeal Court case coming up in March about advance rent and whether it is a deposit.
There is a distinct possibility that ALL advance rent will be considered to be a deposit.
Now if this is the way the court goes, that really will put the cat among the pidgeons!!?

Mary Latham

23:23 PM, 7th February 2013, About 11 years ago

Yes Paul I do know about that but we don't need to be concerned about advance rent for a "tenancy period" in other words a month in advance and rent due each month. The problem has arisen because landlords are using rent in advance to cover potential losses and taking for example 2 months up front and the next payment is due at the start of the second month rather than the third. If the rent was due at the start of month 3 that would be a rent period of 2 months and there would be no problem. It will be interesting to see how it goes but I would be very surprised if what I have said above is not confirm by this case and lets remember that landlords have caused the issue by trying to avoid deposit protection legislation.
Follow me on Twitter@landlordtweets

Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118

19:41 PM, 8th February 2013, About 11 years ago

Hi Paul, yes I am aware and there are potential knock on consequences too.

1 2

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership


Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now