consent to let charges

[mandimoo]

i got my mortgage 11 years ago. last year i moved in with my boyfriend and commenced doing my house up so i could rent it out. my mortgage provider is now telling me i have to ask their permission and they will charge me �225 if they give their consent. my query is, i did NOT buy this property with the intention to let. I have still paid the mortgage whilst not living there and will continue to do so, regardless of whether i have tennant this will continue. i really dont want to pay them this consent to let fee, i just cant get my head around why I should have to when the mortgage payments are not reliant on having a tennant. also i have a guarantor, who has undertook to keep up the payments if i fail to and they are completely comfortable with my decision. i reckon if i have the guarantor permission, the lender should just accept it.

[Fay Mousse]

Same question, same answer, so I've just copied and pasted:

It is a condition of most standard mortgages that only the mortgagee and family live in the property and it is not let out. Read your mortgage contract - it will also say you need to ask their permission to rent it out.

This is simply because if you default on your mortgage it is very much harder to repossess the property if there are tenants living in it. Yes, you have a guarantor but this does not mean the mortgage company can't be in a position to repossess.

The mortgage company is in the right in the instance. If you are not happy you can always go to another mortgage company.

Remember you will also need to inform your insurance company that the house is rented out - your insurance will probably go up as well.

[redcrx]

i wont even copy and paste.

the mortgage company own the property as well, you need their permission.

if all they are asking is the one off payment then go for it, especially considering how high the interest rates are on buy to let mortgages.