Mortgage quote in United Kingdom: 5.98% fixed for 3 years ...thoughts?

[DirectCairn]

The 5.98% fixed rate for three years is driving the decision, but it may not be the cheapest option once the fee and LTV band are taken into account. This is for a London purchase at about £698,100.

I am trying to compare the offers over the period I am actually likely to keep the mortgage. Would you total the fees and 36 payments, then compare the remaining balance, rather than relying heavily on APR? I also care about whether the monthly payment leaves enough room in the budget, and what portability or early-repayment restrictions would apply.

The lower-looking option becomes less convincing on that basis. I am also conscious that the payment could rise after year three if replacement rates are worse. Which trade-off would you give most weight, and how much does the exact loan-to-value tier affect the answer?

 

[chart.ready]

For a three-year decision, I’d compare the total cost over exactly those three years: payments, arrangement fees and any other mortgage charges, while also noting the balance left at the end. APR can be useful, but it may not match your likely refinance timeline.

What loan amount and LTV tier are you using? Without those, it’s hard to tell whether 5.98% is genuinely competitive or just the result of crossing a pricing boundary.

 

[EasyPage]

I wouldn’t choose purely on three-year cash outlay. Two offers can have similar payments but leave different balances, and the cheapest option may have restrictive early-repayment or portability conditions.

Put each quote into one table: upfront fees, 36 monthly payments, balance after month 36, and the cost if you move or repay early. Then test whether the payment remains manageable if refinancing after three years is more expensive than expected. That rate-reset risk may matter more than a modest fee difference.