The key issue here is affordabiliy. As one poster said if the amount of money paid remains the same, for the bank there is nothing but improvement in their capital ratings. I wonder if there is another way to deal with the rental income so that it buys more back at the bank. One thing that I have been wondering is where the mortgage holder asks the bank to appoint a rent receiver. As the rent is now going to the bank, is it correct to say that the mortgage holder does not have to declare this as income or is it income that they remain liable for even though they dont get id? If its the former, the bank can apply more of the rent towards the repayment of the capital as the restrictions on reliefs would no longer apply and therefore the mortgage holder benefits in some way. Just thinking out loud here. Its something that I have been wondering about.