"Agreement and Undertaking" mortgage deed for partner

Its so that if the mortgage company reposesses, your partner isn't a legal impediment. Presumably the mortgage is your name only? Only normally used for adults living there who aren't on the mortgage.

Martin <

We offer advice on mortgages at

Do you offer legal advice on usenet spam?

Yes its standard, or at least we had to get my daughter to sign one when we remortgaged, IIRC she was over 18 but living with us. I suppose its to attempt to forestall the situation whereby you knowingly take out a mortgage with the company with the intention not to pay it and prevent them evicting you by having a dependent who would be made homeless. And as you say it does seem pointless, in your case if you had that intention, you could 'split up' the day before you signed, and have a 'reconciliation' the day after, if you see what I mean :-)

"Tumbleweed" wrote

Doesn't the mortgage lender ask to be notified of any important subsequent changes relevant to the mortgage when they occur - such as another adult beginning to live there after "a 'reconciliation' the day after"?

I dont know. I'd be surprised if you had to continually keep the mortgage co apprised of changes in your circumstances like that, what would be the point? Suppose they sent the new 'partner' a form and they refused to sign it, would they evict you? I presume they are just covering their arses, so no one can make the argument that even though the mortgage co knew the person lived there, they didnt ask them to waive their rights and therefore acquiesced. In the event that someone moves in later, the mortgage co can at least say that they werent aware of the change and thus havent implicitly agreed to anything.

"Tumbleweed" wrote

Presumably, the point would be the same reason why they ask for the partner to sign the form when the mortgage is started?

"Tumbleweed" wrote

If the 'partner' would acquire "sitting tenant" rights after 6 months, and refuses to sign the form, then the lender would have those 6 months to evict.

If there was the possibility that they may need to evict later, and would be prevented from so doing because of "sitting tenant" rights of the partner, perhaps they might prefer to evict during those 6 months when they were allowed to by law, just "to be safe"?

"Tumbleweed" wrote

But would the fact the the lender wasn't aware, actually remove the partner's rights under law as a "sitting tenant"?

I'm pretty sure that "sitting tenant" laws were removed some time ago.

"Adrian Boliston" wrote

But in that case, why on earth *do* the lenders still ask for "other occupying adults" to sign the form being discussed in this thread - if the 'partner' doesn't have any claim on the house (ownership), and also has no 'sitting tenant' rights?

They don't have a claim on the house, but do have a claim of occupancy, the form mentioned is commonplace when arranging a mortgage if there are parties not applying for the mortgage, but do reside in the property.

There is a technical term for it, but cemap is like any other exam, most of it is forgotten as soon as you leave the examination room!

"Matt Robertson" wrote

That's what I was talking about when I mentioned 'sitting tenants' rights - but Adrian suggested these were "removed some time ago"??

Sitting tenant wouldn't be the right phrase as they are not sitting tenants. I seem to remember people having to sign something and I think it was about the matrimonial homes act. I think the gist of it is that you are not allowed to turn your spouse out on the street with nowhere to stay, as they have rights of occupancy.

There must be a risk that the building society could get hit by the same legislation- evict the husband and the wife/partner says 'I'm not going, this is my matrimonial home and I have a right of occupancy.'

Neb

"Nebulous" wrote

Apologies - that is just the phrase that was used when describing to me, at age 18, why I had to sign the form when my parents were selling their house (in which I lived at the time).

"Nebulous" wrote

That bit's agreed! [It's the "why" we're trying to establish...]

"Nebulous" wrote

Does that Act also apply to non-married partners? And also sons/daughters of house owners??!

"Nebulous" wrote

Exactly - which is where we get back to my query (half-a-dozen posts back) :- "But would the fact that the lender wasn't aware, actually remove the partner's rights under law...?"

its standard stuff,i was in a similar situation becuase i moved into a house that my partner bought as sole mortgagee and becuase i lived there,i had to sign one of these release forms. As others say,its to waive any claims in case of repo or whatever..