Mortgage Express want copies of tenancy agreements

Mortgage Express want copies of tenancy agreements

10:26 AM, 15th October 2015, About 9 years ago 58

Text Size

I am puzzled as to why my lender (Mortgage Express) has just sent me a letter wanting to see tenancy agreements for two of my properties which I bought back in 2008.mortgage express

Just wanted to know if anyone else has had this experience and also why would they be asking for these documents.

Many thanks

Zar


Share This Article


Comments

Hugh Jass

12:45 PM, 31st October 2015, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Ian Narbeth" at "19/10/2015 - 11:17":

The point is Ian, why move if you haven't made any breaches? If you're on the 1.75% + base with MX then you're on to a winner. Already been mentioned that moving would cost £1,000s and cost more per month ? Why do that?? Are you a mortgage broker?

Zahir- I'd look in detail through you original offer letter to see if you have committed any breaches, if you haven't then co-operate with MX.

James Leavesden

7:44 AM, 1st November 2015, About 9 years ago

Unless you are required by contract to provide them ASTs I would be inclined to ignore the request at this point if every thing is in order and you are up to date with your payments. They may never ask or contact you again.

Let's be clear, when MX say they want to help it means they want you to redeem, make additional payments to pay down your mortgage or foreclose on you. If they ask for information you are not obliged to provide it is only for ammunition to use against you.

9:42 AM, 1st November 2015, About 9 years ago

The request for the AST's is the first of what seems a set of actions being taken at the moment - I now from my experiences with others I am and have been dealing with.

Richard Mann

15:24 PM, 3rd November 2015, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Joan Keeley" at "15/10/2015 - 12:25":

Hi Joan, I am very sorry to hear about the manner in which you were treated by MX.
In order to provide some help to other members on the forum with similar anxieties, would you have any objection to sharing your experience? Last year I wanted to sell a property with an MX mortgage on it, I was informed that if I sold that particular property then I would instantly have to sell 4 others that I have with them.
Surely it would make sense to sell one pay down some debt and then move on in that fashion? Clearly not according to MX. I have 18 years and 9 months to run so they maybe in for a lengthy wait before they see their funds again 🙂 🙂 🙂

Richard Mann

15:29 PM, 3rd November 2015, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Peter Fisher - Fixed Fee Law" at "01/11/2015 - 09:42":

Hi Peter, just a quick question...
Would you happen to know if MX have a particular AST that meets their criteria? Do you know if for example the ASTs provided by the RLA or NLA fit the bill?
In your experience was there or has there been a specific clause or condition that has triggered a response by MX?
Just wondering....

Ian Narbeth

16:39 PM, 3rd November 2015, About 9 years ago

Richard
You have hit the point I referred to above. A mortgagee can "consolidate" all mortgages which means that every property is security for the entire debt. This means that to redeem any one mortgage in order to sell or refinance a property you have to pay off the entire debt if the mortgagee so elects. The rationale is to prevent the mortgagee being prejudiced if a more valuable/easier to sell property were redeemed first.

As MX want ALL their money back they appear to have taken the view that partial redemptions, even if there is loads of equity remaining to secure the debt, will not be accepted. So you are stuck in a lifeless marriage with them for 18 years and 9 months. They may get more aggressive in future and try to find a default in order to call in the loans. For your part you might see if they are interested in "selling" your loan back to you at a discount. You might then refinance with another lender. Just a thought - but if your interest rate is low you may prefer to sit it out.

Richard Mann

16:56 PM, 3rd November 2015, About 9 years ago

Thank you for your comment.
I would not have considered grouping the properties as one a reasonable practice. I certainly do not remember this " clause" being bought to my attention when I signed up i.e try selling one we will force you to sell the lot!
Any way I'm happy to pay MX anything under 25p in the pound if they wish to proceed 🙂

17:10 PM, 3rd November 2015, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Richard Mann" at "03/11/2015 - 16:56":

Richard-MX will take the selling of one as selling all and will ask you to redeem all. I know this from others cases and will look at ALL your applications in fine detail. Again I know from other cases I have dealt with and ones i am dealing with.

Richard Mann

17:17 PM, 3rd November 2015, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Peter Fisher - Fixed Fee Law" at "03/11/2015 - 17:10":

Hi Peter,
Thank you for commenting.
I guess I'll sit it out for the time being and wait for MX to offer me an amazing deal at some point over the next 18 years and 9 months ?

Ian Narbeth

17:23 PM, 3rd November 2015, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Richard Mann" at "03/11/2015 - 16:56":

Hi Richard
This is because it is dealt with in s93 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which says:

"(1) A mortgagor seeking to redeem any one mortgage is entitled to do so without paying any money due under any separate mortgage made by him, or by any person through whom he claims, solely on property other than that comprised in the mortgage which he seeks to redeem.

This subsection applies only if and as far as a contrary intention is not expressed in the mortgage deeds or one of them.
...

(3)Save as aforesaid, nothing in this Act, in reference to mortgages, affects any right of consolidation or renders inoperative a stipulation in relation to any mortgage made before or after the commencement of this Act reserving a right to consolidate"

The key words are "only if and as far as a contrary intention is not expressed in the mortgage deeds or one of them". It is standard to express a contrary intention and to exclude s93 in mortgage deeds. I would be staggered if MX had not excluded it. Even if you read the Ts&Cs you probably did not appreciate the significance of the documents.

Leave Comments

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

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now