Mortgage Express – Are they looking to break mortgage contracts?

Reply to the comment left by "Steve Harris" at "26/04/2016 - 14:57":

I would have expected so but from some of the comments it appears some are standing orders.

Now I have checked with my partner/bank account we are on D.D. and NOT S.O.
Sorry if we inadvertently confused matters. So no action required unless we wish to write. Strong case for let sleeping dogs lie amidst uncertainty and speculation?

There have been previous posts relating to S.O.s though so not sure of other's positions.

Chris.

I am puzzled by many of the comments in this thread. Until a month ago I had eleven MEx interest only mortgages, the first of these taken in 2004. Looking back through my records for each of these mortgages there has been an annual adjustment of interest due and paid in every year since 2008, in the early years as much as £40 but since 2011 usually only a matter of a few pence either way. In previous years there have never been any wider consequences so far as I can discern nor any ulterior or sinister motive. UKAR seem to have felt it necessary to send a letter this year and the result is a fair amount of confusion and a great deal of concern. Are contributors to this thread saying this is the first year such an adjustment has been made to their mortgage(s) because that is not my experience?

I recently sold one property and redeemed the mortgage. UKAR called for an additional £1,500 approximately, said to be interest due following a change to MEx's basis of accounting in 2005. The verbal explanation I was given was entirely consistent with Trendo's account in his contribution of 20 April and the amount I was required to pay represented 27/30ths of my June 2005 mortgage interest payment. As far as I can see this is a completely separate and unconnected matter to the main issue raised in this thread.

Reply to the comment left by "astj n" at "30/04/2016 - 10:16":

Hello astj n,
So you have a portfolio of properties with Mortgage Express which will no doubt be on the low interest rates and you have managed to sell one of your 11 properties that are mortgaged with MX

To cut through some of the scaremongering about MX it would be really helpful if you could answer the following question:

1 Did MX apply their rights to consolidate and use any of the sale proceeds after paying off the mortgage to "pay down" any of your other mortgages?
2 Have they now told you that because you have paid off/consolidated one mortgage with them that they now wish to invoke (some weird right in their T & C's) that you now have to sell other/all properties with them? This is a scare story that is doing the rounds.

Have you had any bad dealings with them at all? So much scaremongering and confusion!

The answer i was given verbally to both the above specific scenarios is that they will look accross your total borrowing with MX and if anything is above agreed LTV (85% in my case) then they would look to address that issue before allowing sale to proceed. i put forward several scenarios NONE of which would be blocked but have 2 out of 10 which are still in 80% territory , It has to be said that theses val /LTV figs are all based on the the halifax house price index (i think but cant be remember) so there is no allowance for improvements or micro movement of prices, it is a very blunt calculation with possibly plenty of scope for movement if required depending on prop condition and local market prices. i have heard anecdotal stories of calling in all loans but have no idea how true they are or of the circumstances that lie behind the call.

Hi Matthew

We are in costa on the side heading up to Leeds haven't got ur mobile to call you ?

Thanks
Steve

Hi Jim,

I am sorry not to have replied sooner to your post of 1 May. The information I can give is very much along the same lines as Trendo’s post of 3 May. The short answers to your two questions are:

1 Yes
2 No

By way of further information about my my specific case, I contacted UKAR as soon as I had a firm offer on a property I intended to sell and, as I have a number of MEx mortgages, all at 1.75% above BOE base rate, I was passed to my Relationship Manager.

UKAR’s approach was to assess the value of each of my properties using the House Price Index (I guess because they have no better indicator and in the absence of professional valuations that would not be feasible in each individual case), and to compare my outstanding mortgages against 85% of the HPI values to measure the L/V of each property and of the portfolio as a whole. According to that measurement my mortgages all exceeded their 85% benchmark by one to three percentage points.

I reached an agreement with my Relationship Manager that, provided I paid the amount in full to redeem the mortgage plus a further sum from my after tax net proceeds of sale to reduce another mortgage, UKAR would not exercise their Right to Consolidate as provided for in my Mortgage Terms and Conditions.

I think it is fair to say that UKAR’s stance in my case was determined by the following factors:

- I have no arrears, have never missed a payment on any mortgage and none of my mortgage accounts is subject to an event default;

- I offered to make quarterly (I receive rents every three months) lump sum payments to pay down my other mortgages in order to bring the whole portfolio into line with the 85% test and I gave a verbal undertaking to do this over the next twelve months

I should make two further points. First, I had already disclosed that, for other reasons, my plan is to sell a number of properties that are subject to MEx mortgages.

Secondly, UKAR already had full details on file of all my properties concerning mortgages, income, expenditure, letting history including information on voids, gross and net yields, tenancy agreements, detailed business plan going forward, including stress test results for increases in interest rates, etc following a very thorough, three hour face-to-face meeting with my then Relationship Manager in 2012.

My impression is that UKAR, as any lender, will risk assess their loans and in effect the borrower and their approach will be influenced by these criteria.

Although I believe I have a sound business model and would like to think I conduct my BTL operation in a responsible and professional way, I nonetheless had real concerns about approaching UKAR about this mortgage redemption because of accounts reported extensively in the landlord community. As it transpired, the fears and concerns I had were not well founded and as a result of the open dialogue I have had, I have a far clearer knowledge of where I stand. In answer to your question, I certainly have not had any "bad dealings" with UKAR either in 2012 or this year and have been able to reach an understanding on my circumstances that is acceptable to both sides.

I am in the process of selling one of my properties that is with MX, There will be a shortfall in redeeming the mortgage and unfortunately at the moment I do not have any spare funds to make this shortfall up, however, MX have agreed to allow me to pay an amount each month on the terms that I sign an amendment deed and transfer onto the "2010 BTL conditions".....I have asked a few questions to UKAR and am awaiting a reply but I don't believe that I have any other alternative but to agree to the new terms, is there anything sinister that I should be looking out for ? any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.....TIA

I would get a solicitor to go through this with a fine tooth comb do u have a portfolio ?

Reply to the comment left by "NW Landlord" at "11/05/2016 - 13:42":

Thanks for your response NW landlord.....I have emailed scanned copies of the documents UKAR sent through to my solicitor and asked her to take a look. I have just the 4 properties, 3 of which are with MX.......I am an ex-pat living in Australia and finding it increasingly difficult to manage my properties so am wanting to offload as and when the tenants leave....