Rooftops Insurance Fines

[Missing]

Hi I've put off posting this as just thinking of it makes me so stressed and then I can't sleep as my mind is racing-but need to deal!

Does anyone here have any experience with Rooftops Mortgages?
They are charging me intrest on top of a fine for not showing insurance for my apartment property in time even thou I couldn't as (In UK) you can't insure 1 property alone if it's in a building? When I explain to them it gets paid through the building service charges they say "Ok but we are just calling to say your bill is outstanding" then I found they were charging me 25GBP for each call on top of the charges ;(

Who can I go to to stop them as it's all getting put on top of my mortgages (I have2 with them in same building) until I pay-Citizens advice or a lawyer as I'm just trying to hold on to the properties as it is and I don't have funds to pay them or legal team ;(

[Amethyst]

Re: Rooftops Insurance Fines

SO it is in the terms of your mortgage with Rooftop that you have buildings insurance - you live in an apartment where the buildings insurance is paid by the freeholder and you pay a share through your service charges.

Could you get a copy of the buildings insurance from the building owner - have you spoken to others who own apartments in your block to see what they have done ?

[PlanB]

Re: Rooftops Insurance Fines

Rooftops Mortgages? They are charging me intrest on top of a fine for not showing insurance for my apartment property in time even thou I couldn't as (In UK) you can't insure 1 property alone if it's in a building? When I explain to them it gets paid through the building service charges they say "Ok but we are just calling to say your bill is outstanding" then I found they were charging me 25GBP for each call on top of the charges ;(

Who can I go to to stop them as it's all getting put on top of my mortgages (I have2 with them in same building) until I pay-Citizens advice or a lawyer as I'm just trying to hold on to the properties as it is and I don't have funds to pay them or legal team

Let me see if I can help since I have had mortgages with Rooftop in the past

You talk about "holding on to the properties" does this mean that you have possession proceedings against you or if the two properties are Buy to Lets is there a threat that these may be seized by the LPA Receiver?

Rooftop (or any other mortgage lender) cannot "fine" you for not having buildings insurance. Full stop. But they can charge you for providing buildings insurance cover under their block policy as a condition of your mortgage(s) and this will have been spelt out to you when the mortgage(s) was/were set up.

Rooftop mortgages like all lenders require that a property is fully insured to protect their asset against which they have lent money. This is not unreasonable.

Having said that a leaseholder cannot insure the building (i.e. provide buildings insurance) because as you have said that can only be provided by the freeholder and then charged back to the leaseholder under service charges. This will be stated clearly in your lease.

The thing is Rooftop's default position is to provide buildings insurance cover and charge you for it unless you tell them different. This will (I guarantee) have been spelt out in your Key Facts Illustration document when you took out the loan(s). What you should have done at that point was approach Rooftop to advise them that it is not an option for them to provide cover on your behalf (because you are a leaseholder). You should have provided them with proof that the property was insured by the freeholder and sent them a copy of the policy.

If you didn't do this at the time then there is a hope that you can do it retrospectively but until you clarify what actually happened (how long have you had these mortgages in place?) at the inception of these loans it's difficult to advise you what to do next.

I see you have referred to Rooftop having instructed a legal team in your first post and I'd like to help you further if you can give me some more information because it's unlikely they would do that unless there are repossession proceedings in the pipeline