Managing a mortgage, a major financial commitment for most households and businesses, can change. Whether to take advantage of a fall in interest rates or to overcome financial difficulties, borrowers have two main options: renegotiation and debt consolidation. Although these mechanisms have a similar objective of optimising debt, they follow very different legal and practical approaches. Understanding their respective frameworks is essential for assessing the opportunities and risks involved. The dealing with mortgage repayment difficulties often involves exploring these amicable solutions before considering more restrictive measures. This article complements our analysis of the renegotiation and early repayment of mortgagesby focusing on the legal aspects and potential pitfalls of these transactions. The assistance of a expert lawyer in mortgage law is often the key to navigating these complex options and securing the borrower's financial situation.
Renegotiating your mortgage: is a rider enough?
Renegotiation involves changing the terms of an existing loan directly with the original lender. It is a contractual procedure that does not terminate the original loan, but adapts it. This solution is often preferred for its administrative simplicity and low cost, as it avoids the costs associated with taking out a new loan and repaying the old one early.
Reasons for renegotiating (lower rates, financial difficulties)
There are two main situations in which borrowers decide to renegotiate their loans. The first, and most common in recent years, is a general fall in market interest rates. A borrower who has taken out a loan at a high rate has every interest in asking his bank to bring it into line with the more favourable conditions of the moment. The second reason is financial difficulties. A change in personal or professional circumstances can make the initial repayments too high. In this case, renegotiation may involve extending the term of the loan to reduce the monthly repayments, even if this means increasing the total cost of the loan.
The formalism of the rider (l. 313-39 of the French Consumer Code) and the compulsory information it must contain
Unlike buying a new loan, which involves creating a new contract, renegotiating a loan involves simply adding an amendment to the original loan contract. This solution, enshrined in law to simplify the process and give the parties greater security, is governed by article L. 313-39 of the French Consumer Code. This stipulates that any modification must be formalised in an amendment, drawn up on a durable medium.
This rider is not a simple formality. It must contain precise information to ensure that the borrower is properly informed. In particular, it must include an amortisation schedule detailing the breakdown between capital repaid and interest for each new instalment. In addition, the rider must show the new annual percentage rate of charge (APR) and the cost of credit, both of which are recalculated solely on the basis of the remaining instalments and charges. The borrower then has a cooling-off period of ten days from receipt of the amendment in which to accept it. Acceptance must be formalised by a means that allows the decision to be dated with certainty, such as by post.
No specific legal penalty for failure to comply with the formal requirements for endorsements
A notable legal feature of renegotiation is the absence of any explicit penalty for failure to comply with the formalities of the amendment provided for in article L. 313-39. The Consumer Code, which provides for the forfeiture of the right to interest by the lender in the event of failure to comply with the rules of the initial loan offer, is silent on the fate of an irregular rider. Case law has confirmed this omission. In a judgment of 3 March 2011 (Civ. 1re, no. 10-15.152), the Court of Cassation ruled that the penalties provided for irregularities in the initial offer do not apply to the renegotiation amendment.
This situation is paradoxical: the legislator imposes a protective formalism but does not attach to it the most dissuasive sanction in consumer law. In the event of a dispute over an incomplete or non-compliant rider, the borrower could not, as the law currently stands, obtain the forfeiture of interest on this basis. The borrower's only recourse would be to sue the bank for breach of its duty to inform, a course of action whose outcome is more uncertain and which presupposes proof of loss. This legal vacuum contrasts with the severity of the penalties applicable to other breaches by the lender.
Impact on ancillary security interests
One of the major advantages of renegotiation by amendment is its effect on the original guarantees. Since there is no new contract, but simply a modification of the old one, the ancillary securities (mortgage, surety, lender's lien) are not extinguished. They continue to guarantee the modified loan. This saves the borrower the cost of releasing the old security and creating a new one, which represents a substantial saving. The individual guarantor's commitment remains, but as the renegotiation is designed to reduce the borrower's debt, his or her own risk is reduced.
Combining mortgages: a risky lever
Credit consolidation, also known as credit repurchase, is a more complex financial operation than renegotiation. It involves taking out a single loan, usually with a new financial institution, to repay all or some of your existing loans (property, consumer credit, etc.) in advance. The aim is often to obtain a single monthly payment, lower than the sum of the previous payments, in exchange for an extension of the repayment period.
Definition and mechanism: buying back credit
On the face of it, the mechanism is simple: a specialised organisation buys the debt owed to the borrower by the previous lenders. Legally, this involves the early repayment of the old loans and the conclusion of a completely new credit contract. This new loan is governed by its own terms and conditions (rate, term, guarantees). This is a fast-growing operation, particularly for households faced with an accumulation of various debts and seeking to regain better visibility and simplified management of their budget.
The dangers for the consumer (increased indebtedness, final cost)
While lower monthly repayments are the main selling point of debt consolidation, the operation is not without its dangers. The first risk is that of spiralling debt. As their monthly repayments fall, borrowers may be tempted to take out new loans, thereby restoring or even worsening their previous level of debt. Secondly, the operation can mask the reality of over-indebtedness without dealing with it in depth. It dilutes the debt over a longer period but does not resolve the structural causes of the financial difficulties. Finally, and this is a crucial point, the final cost of the operation is almost always higher than the total cost of the initial loans. Extending the repayment period automatically leads to an increase in the total amount of interest paid, to which must be added the costs of the operation (early repayment penalties for old loans, administration fees, costs of new guarantees).
The legal framework for grouping (l. 314-10 et seq. of the French Consumer Code)
Aware of the risks involved, the legislator has provided a framework for credit consolidation in articles L. 314-10 et seq. of the French Consumer Code. The law establishes an essential qualification rule to determine the applicable legal regime. According to article L. 314-11, if the proportion of home loans in the total amount of combined loans exceeds 60 %, the entire transaction is subject to the rules protecting home loans (prior offer, ten-day cooling-off period, etc.). If this proportion is less than or equal to 60 %, the rules for consumer credit apply. This distinction is fundamental because the protection regimes differ, particularly with regard to the length of the withdrawal or cooling-off period.
Mechanisms for attracting security interests in immovable property
To strengthen borrower protection, the legislator has introduced a powerful pull mechanism. Article L. 314-12 of the French Consumer Code stipulates that any credit consolidation transaction, regardless of its purpose or the proportion of different types of credit, is subject to the rules governing real estate credit if it is secured by a mortgage or other comparable collateral on a residential property. In other words, the presence of a property guarantee brings the entire transaction within the scope of mortgage law. This rule ensures that borrowers who use their home as collateral benefit from the highest level of protection, regardless of the nature of the debts being consolidated.
Legal framework: links between renegotiation, consolidation and early repayment
Renegotiation and consolidation are two distinct approaches that should not be confused. Renegotiation is an adjustment to the initial contract with the same banker, formalised by an amendment. Consolidation is an innovative operation, involving the repayment of old loans and the creation of a new debt, often with a new financial player. The choice between the two strategies depends on a number of factors, including the position of the original bank and the calculation of costs.
The link with early repayment is central. By its very nature, debt consolidation involves early repayment of the loans purchased. This operation therefore almost systematically triggers the payment of early repayment indemnities (IRA) to the former lenders, if the contracts so provided. Article L. 313-47 of the French Consumer Code caps this compensation, which may not exceed six months' interest on the capital repaid, up to a limit of 3 % of the capital outstanding before repayment. These indemnities represent a significant cost that needs to be factored into the calculation of the profitability of a buyback operation.
This is where the advantage of renegotiation becomes clear: by modifying the existing contract without terminating it, there is no early repayment and therefore no IRA. The most logical approach for a borrower is therefore often to attempt renegotiation with their current lender first. Only if this is refused, or if the proposal is deemed unsatisfactory, should the option of consolidating with another institution be explored, carefully weighing up the additional costs that will be incurred.
The complexity of these arrangements and the resulting financial and legal implications make it essential to analyse each individual situation. Sound legal advice enables you to compare the options objectively, check the legality of bids and amendments, and choose the most suitable and secure solution. For an in-depth analysis of your situation and tailored advice, please contact our team atlawyers specialising in mortgages.
Sources
- French Consumer Code, in particular articles L. 313-39 (renegotiation) and L. 314-10 to L. 314-12 (debt consolidation).
- Civil Code, for the general principles of contract law.
- Court of Cassation case law on penalties and formalities for credit transactions.
EN 
FR