Pat tackles your questions

I have just come off a two year fixed rate mortgage with Alliance & Leicester.

There were no tie ins or redemption charges - which I confirmed verbally with A&L when I signed up for the mortgage.

Now I wish to leave A&L and get a better deal with another lender as the fixed rate has come to an end and A&L are charging me �295 redemption fee for leaving them. I found out the most banks charge something between �90-�140, but I am shocked at A&L charging a whopping �295 as standard.

I have written to them expressing my concern regarding this excessive charge, but I think they will still force me to pay it.

Is there any advice you can give me so that I do not have to part with �295?

Pat says: In the last few months there has rightly been a huge fuss over lenders upping the exit fees for existing customers. FSA has become involved and basically said it's not on. The good news for you is that if the fee was lower than �295 when you took your mortgage out, if you ask them now, then they will charge you that lower amount. A&L should be able to deal with this on a quick phone call. I am interested to find out the criteria lenders use when they talk about 'mortgage affordability'. I went into my local Nationwide office, recently, to discuss an increase in my mortgage. I suggested that my borrowing be limited to a multiple of my income. The Nationwide representative said no, it was based on affordability.

In the past I have lived and worked in the United States. A criterion that was used there, was that the mortgage payment should not exceed 25% of take home pay.

This method takes account of interest rates as well as taxation.

Pat says: All lenders are required to lend prudently and each makes their own decisions about how much they are prepared to lend borrowers.

No lender in the UK wants to lend money in today's market to a borrower who cannot afford to keep up repayments as arrears management is time consuming and expensive.

Traditionally lenders in the UK used income multiples as the basis for working out how much they would lend, but increasingly they have become more sophisticated and built models that do exactly as you say, take account of disposable income, on a case-by-case basis.

Interestingly though noises have been made in the USA about borrowers being able to get a better deal by taking shorter term rates, we believe that the best position of all is for borrowers to have choice and in that sense there is no more competitive mortgage market in the world.

After a recent dispute with Barclays Bank I took the opportunity to fully redeem my mortgage for my dwelling house.

On requesting the title deeds for the property I received an enclosed letter which said I should instruct a solicitor to complete the discharge of the mortgage I made a number of telephone calls to the bank and other agencies to try and ascertain what this process entails or to have an information leaflet provided but no-one appears able to supply this information.

I had to pay Barclays a redemption fee and now it appears that I am required to pay for a solicitor to complete this process. Surely the mortgage provider should have this responsibility. Can you assist and explain.

Pat says: If, as in your case, a mortgage is repaid early then all lenders will charge a fee for releasing the land registry charge against your property and sending you, or your solicitor the title deeds.

This is standard across all lenders and it so it seems amazing that no one at Barclays is able to explain this to you clearly. In essence, if you want to repay your mortgage you only need to request a formal redemption statement from the lender. This will list all charges associated with repaying the mortgage and if you then send a cheque for that amount, the mortgage will be redeemed.

If you still find Barclays helpful I would make a formal complaint in writing as that does tend to move some of these large organizations along with a little more urgency.

I have a mortgage with the Halifax. My ex is still registered as a signatory. I can't get the Halifax to put it in my name. I have paid the mortgage since I got the home and for the last eight years since the break up. I am not in arrears at all. I am on incapacity benefit and get my interest paid on my mortgage. I have also said to the Halifax that a family member will stand as a guarantor.

Pat says: If you want to be released someone from a mortgage then the lender has the right to ensure that the borrower remaining has sufficient income to service the debt left, on their own.

The information you have provided would indicate that a solution should be findable, although be aware that most lenders do not accept Incapacity Benefit as it is not guaranteed and may be withdrawn, or amended by politicians in the future.

The guarantor route mentioned here makes sense and I would suggest that you make an appointment to go into a branch to discuss this in detail. This often gets far better results than a remote phone call into a head office.

I think one of the key questions that should be asked at the moment is 'are companies such as banks and utility companies too flexible for the regulators who are supposed to be monitoring them?'

As an example if banks are prohibited from making one type of charge they can immediately instigate a new different charge and by the time the regulators have caught up they could have made millions. The same applies to mortgage companies who seem to be able to put on charges at will.

The question is therefore - do we need a new kind of regulator?

Pat says: This is an almost impossible question to answer, but let me try.

I don't believe that a regulator's role should encompass product design as they are not as good as the marketplace at doing that. I do however think that FSA's moves to more 'principles based' regulation with a very clear focus on a firm being required to treat customers fairly - is absolutely right.

In short, if firms act in a way that is not 'treating customers fairly' then they will be open to censure from the regulator - in that sense I think FSA as a regulator of Financial Services do lead the way.

We have just finished our five year fixed rate of 4.99% with Skipton. They have made a whopping leap to 7.14%. Gratefully our �30,000 mortgage means an increase of �40 per month. But for a small mortgage like this we think this is a huge increase. When we rang them, they say they can (without any charges) arrange another five year fixed rate of 6.29%. Or we can pay �100 and then fix at 6.24% for five years. Any suggestions?

Pat says: The reality is that the cost of fixed rates offered by lenders is largely dictated by the prevailing money market rates. In your case the these rates have increased since you took the original fixed rate out and you could look at that is being bad now, but then on the flipside it was good that when you last arranged your fix you got such a low rate.

You could look elsewhere and remortgage, but given the small size of your loan it is unlikely that will be worthwhile after all moving costs, valuation, solicitors and arrangement fees are taken into consideration. Had the mortgage been larger that may have been the best option and don't forget that the purpose of a fixed rate is to give you certainty, not to in some way be a gamble on what may, or may not happen to interest rates in the future - as no one can accurately predict that.

A friend and his girlfriend each own properties, but are hoping to move to a new house in the next few months, if they are able to find buyers for their present properties.

Unlike my friend, his girlfriend would have to pay a redemption penalty if she sold before the end of April.

My question is: Can my friend's girlfriend obtain a joint mortgage with him on the new property, provided that she has exchanged contracts to complete as soon as the early redemption period expires. Covering the two mortgage payments for one or two months is not a problem. They would only proceed with the purchase if contracts are exchanged on both of their existing properties.

Pat says: If the new lender can see that contracts have been exchanged and the time period of holding both mortgages is that short then they will generally be happy to proceed. Some lenders are more fussy than others on this though, so make sure you cover that upfront with any new lender, before you make an application and start incurring costs.

My question concerns my brother whose recent divorce settlement means that his ex-wife has got the house. He has no savings and now nowhere to live, but he has successfully applied to purchase a one-bedroom flat under the shared ownership scheme. He was originally told by a number of building societies that he would qualify for a shared-ownership mortgage even though he admitted to still being a co-party on the mortgage of his previous marital home, although making no financial contribution to that mortgage.

Now that he has made some official applications for a mortgage he is being told he can't have one due to his other mortgage liability (some �200,000). His salary means he would qualify for the relatively small shared-housing mortgage.

My brother does not need to pay anything towards his old mortgage, there is a court order stating that his ex-wife gets the house and he therefore has no financial interest in the property, but the C&G won't take him off the mortgage - this evidently can only be done if his ex-wife requests it, which is something she is in no hurry to do. However, when his ex-wife asked the C&G for a mortgage 'holiday' of six months and requested that it be switched to 'interest-only' they did this without his knowledge or approval. Why won't the C&G just remove his name and take up directly with his ex-wife about whether or not she has the ability to pay the mortgage that would now be in her sole name?

How can my brother:

a) Get his name taken off the old marital house mortgage without the need for his ex-wife to initiate this?

b) Get a mortgage for a shared-ownership property whilst having to declare that he is still named on the mortgage for his previous house?

Pat says: These sorts of matrimonial situations are very difficult indeed, but I am amazed that C&G agreed to changes to the current mortgage without his consent.

As a joint borrower he is jointly liable for the debt and in allowing a six month payment holiday the mortgage will increase as the interest is not being serviced. This sounds very odd and as a joint borrower I would be making a formal complaint to C&G about this.

From the sounds of things the existing mortgage situation needs resolving first as whilst he is on the mortgage, he is in the eyes of any new lender jointly liable for it. This will affect any decision about how much they might be prepared to lend him.

In a matrimonial situation like this there may be a lot more going on than I am aware of so I would urge your brother to talk to his solicitor and see what can be done - as at face value this just doesn't sound right.