A new mortgage solution could provide a route back into the lending market for homeowners whose properties have become difficult to sell or refinance because of spray foam insulation.

LiveMore has launched a proposition under which a property can be valued on the assumption that the spray foam has been professionally removed. The removal is then incorporated into the transaction through a specialist partner, with no upfront payment required from the homeowner.

The lender has partnered with Verified Building Services to arrange removal by vetted contractors. According to the launch announcement, the mortgage assessment can proceed using the expected condition and value of the property after remediation, rather than requiring the borrower to fund the work before knowing whether finance will be available.

This addresses one of the central difficulties faced by affected homeowners.

A borrower may need a mortgage or equity-release facility to pay for the removal, but the presence of the insulation may prevent a lender from accepting the property as security. At the same time, the borrower may not have sufficient savings to undertake professional remediation before applying.

LiveMore’s solution is designed to break that circular problem by linking the lending, valuation and removal processes.

The development is commercially important because spray foam insulation has become one of the most widely discussed mortgageability issues affecting otherwise conventional residential property.

Industry estimates suggest that as many as 250,000 UK homes may contain spray foam insulation, with some owners encountering difficulties when attempting to sell, remortgage or access later-life lending.

However, the launch does not mean every property containing spray foam is automatically suitable for lending, nor does it mean every installation must be removed.

The condition of the roof, type of foam, installation method, available documentation and lender’s individual policy remain critical.

Why Spray Foam Became a Mortgage Problem

Spray polyurethane foam has been used in roof spaces for several decades.

It has sometimes been applied to stabilise an ageing roof covering, but in more recent years it has primarily been marketed as a way to improve thermal performance and reduce heat loss.

When correctly specified and installed, the product may perform its intended insulation function. The mortgage problem arises because surveyors and lenders cannot always establish whether the installation is appropriate or whether damage is concealed behind it.

Spray foam can cover rafters, roof timbers, fixings and the underside of roof coverings. That can make it difficult for a surveyor to inspect the structure properly and identify rot, water penetration, cracking or other defects.

Certain forms of foam may also restrict ventilation or trap moisture where the installation is unsuitable for the building. The Property Care Association has reported concerns about poorly applied or incorrectly specified products and has encountered properties where roof timbers were exposed to an increased risk of moisture damage.

The difficulty for a lender is therefore not simply the presence of insulation.

It is uncertainty over the condition and future saleability of the property being offered as mortgage security.

If a valuer cannot inspect important parts of the roof or confirm that the installation has not caused damage, the lender may decline the property, require further specialist reports or insist that the foam is removed before lending.

Not Every Installation Is Necessarily Defective

The distinction between a problematic installation and a property that merely contains spray foam is important.

Consumer guidance from the Property Care Association states that not every installation is inherently problematic. Some lenders may consider affected properties individually where sufficient documents and professional evidence are available.

The same guidance warns that the widespread concern has also created opportunities for unregulated or aggressive removal businesses to pressure homeowners into expensive work that may not always be necessary.

A homeowner should therefore avoid assuming that immediate removal is the only possible response.

The first stage should normally be to establish what was installed, how it was applied and whether the appropriate technical documentation exists.

Relevant records may include the original contract, product information, installer details, warranties, British Board of Agrément or KIWA certification, pre-installation surveys and evidence of ventilation calculations.

A suitably qualified professional may then be able to assess whether the installation presents a material risk or whether further investigation is required.

Where the foam has been incorrectly applied, conceals defects or prevents a lender’s valuer from assessing the roof, professional removal may still be necessary.

The correct remediation route must be determined from evidence rather than from a generic assumption that all spray foam is identical.

The New Structure Tackles the Upfront-Cost Deadlock

One of the most practical aspects of LiveMore’s proposition is the way it addresses the cost and sequencing of remediation.

Under a conventional process, the homeowner may be told that the insulation must be removed before the property can be accepted by a mortgage lender.

That can require several thousand pounds of work, sometimes followed by repairs to roof timbers, membranes or tiles.

The homeowner may then face a difficult decision. They must pay for the removal without certainty that the property will subsequently achieve the required valuation or satisfy the chosen lender’s remaining criteria.

Some borrowers do not have the available cash. Others may be reluctant to commit substantial funds where a sale has already fallen through or several lenders have declined the property.

Under the new solution, LiveMore says the property is valued on the basis that the foam has already been professionally removed. The work is then managed through Verified Building Services, with no upfront payment required from the customer.

This does not remove the cost of remediation. The cost must ultimately be accounted for within the transaction.

It does, however, potentially allow the lending and building work to be coordinated so that the borrower is not required to solve the property defect entirely before a mortgage decision can progress.

Failed Remortgages May Now Deserve a Fresh Review

Spray foam is often discovered when an existing homeowner applies to remortgage.

The borrower may have occupied the property without any obvious roof problem for years. The issue only becomes apparent when the lender’s valuation identifies the insulation and refers the case for further review.

Where the existing fixed rate is approaching expiry, a declined remortgage can create immediate financial pressure.

The borrower may be moved onto a higher reversion rate while being unable to access competing products. If they are also approaching retirement, affordability may become more difficult as employment income reduces.

A previous mortgage decline should not necessarily be treated as proof that no lending route exists.

Different lenders have different property criteria and risk appetites. Some may decline any affected property, while others may consider specialist evidence, remediation or a structured removal process.

The borrower’s age, income, loan-to-value ratio and preferred repayment basis will also influence the available options.

LiveMore specialises in lending to borrowers aged 40 and above and offers capital repayment, interest-only, retirement interest-only and lifetime mortgage products. The precise route available for a spray-foam case will still depend on the lender’s current product criteria and the borrower’s wider circumstances.

Property Sales Can Fail Late in the Transaction

Spray foam can also disrupt a sale after the buyer and seller believe the main terms have been agreed.

A buyer may obtain an agreement in principle and instruct solicitors, only for the property to be rejected following valuation or survey.

The buyer then faces several possibilities.

They may need to approach a different lender, commission specialist reports, renegotiate the price or withdraw from the purchase.

The seller may lose not only that buyer but also an onward purchase. Where the transaction forms part of a chain, the consequences can spread across several households.

This is why sellers should identify the issue before accepting an offer wherever possible.

A pre-sale review can establish whether the installation documents are available, whether a specialist inspection is advisable and which lenders may be prepared to consider the property.

Where removal is likely to be required, understanding the process and likely cost before the buyer’s valuation can reduce the risk of a late-stage collapse.

Estate agents and conveyancers also need to avoid making definitive statements that a property is either fully mortgageable or permanently unmortgageable.

The position is lender-specific and evidence-dependent.

Buyers Need More Than a Mortgage Offer

The launch may also create opportunities for purchasers considering properties with existing spray foam.

A buyer may see the issue as a reason to negotiate a lower price, particularly where other purchasers have withdrawn.

However, securing a mortgage does not by itself establish that the purchase is commercially sensible.

The buyer needs to understand the condition of the roof after removal, the possibility of underlying damage and the cost of any additional repairs.

Removal can expose timber decay, condensation damage, failed roofing felt or defects that were previously hidden.

The agreed purchase price should therefore reflect both the known remediation requirement and an appropriate contingency for further work.

The buyer should also confirm who is responsible for arranging and paying for the removal, when it will take place and what evidence will be supplied after completion.

Mortgage advice, surveying and legal due diligence must operate together. A lender being willing to consider the security does not replace the buyer’s need for an independent assessment of the property.

Equity Release Borrowers Have Been Particularly Exposed

Spray foam has created acute difficulties for some older homeowners seeking to release equity.

These borrowers may have substantial property wealth but limited savings or pension income. They may be seeking funds to repay an existing mortgage, adapt the property, meet care costs or supplement retirement income.

Historically, the presence of spray foam could prevent the property from being accepted for a lifetime mortgage or another later-life facility.

Property Care Association consumer guidance published before the LiveMore launch noted reports that no equity-release lenders were accepting properties where spray foam had been retrofitted after construction.

LiveMore’s new route may therefore be particularly significant for homeowners who need to access housing wealth but cannot independently fund removal.

Nevertheless, equity release should not become the automatic recommendation simply because it provides a possible remediation route.

Borrowers should still compare conventional remortgages, retirement interest-only mortgages, lifetime mortgages, downsizing and other property-backed solutions.

A lifetime mortgage can reduce the value of the borrower’s estate and may affect entitlement to means-tested benefits. Interest may compound where it is not serviced.

The remediation problem and the suitability of the mortgage product are separate questions. Both must be addressed.

Professional Removal Is Not the Same as Cutting the Foam Away

Homeowners who discover that spray foam is blocking a transaction may be tempted to remove it themselves or instruct the cheapest available contractor.

That can make the problem worse.

Removal may damage roofing membranes, timbers, tiles, electrical wiring or other parts of the structure. Incomplete removal can also leave the property unacceptable to the valuer if significant residue remains or the roof still cannot be adequately inspected.

The homeowner will normally require evidence explaining what work has been completed and what condition the roof is in afterwards.

The PCA advises consumers not to be rushed, not to accept unsolicited removal offers and to obtain comparable quotations and independent references. It also warns against paying the full cost of services in advance.

A professional process should establish the extent of the installation, protect the building during removal and identify any repairs required once the structure is exposed.

Where a lender is involved, the removal and post-remediation evidence must satisfy that lender’s specific requirements.

Valuation Remains Central to the Lending Decision

LiveMore’s use of a valuation based on the property after removal is a notable part of the proposition.

It allows the lender to assess the security it expects to hold once the required work has been completed.

However, an assumed post-remediation valuation is not necessarily the same as the homeowner’s preferred market value.

The valuer must still consider location, condition, comparable sales, remaining defects and the impact of any necessary roof repairs.

If removal exposes substantial damage, the property may require further work before it reaches the assumed condition.

The maximum loan may also be constrained by affordability, age, product type and loan-to-value limits.

Borrowers should therefore avoid treating professional removal as a guarantee that they will obtain a particular mortgage amount.

The purpose of the structure is to create a viable route through the process, not to remove normal underwriting or valuation requirements.

A Specialist Solution Does Not Create a Universal Precedent

The launch represents an important change in lender appetite, but it should not be interpreted as an industry-wide acceptance of spray-foam properties.

Other lenders may continue to apply different policies. Some may consider inspection evidence, while others may require complete removal or decline the property altogether.

Criteria may also differ according to whether the application is for a purchase, standard remortgage, retirement interest-only loan or lifetime mortgage.

The type and location of the foam can matter, as can the age and construction of the property.

This means homeowners and buyers should obtain lender-specific guidance before spending money, making an offer or committing to remediation.

An application submitted to an unsuitable lender can result in unnecessary valuation costs, lost time and additional declines.

Specialist mortgage advice is particularly valuable where the property issue intersects with later-life income, an expiring mortgage, a failed sale or a time-sensitive onward transaction.

Spray Foam No Longer Has to Mean the End of the Transaction

For several years, many affected homeowners have felt trapped between a property that lenders would not accept and remediation they could not afford in advance.

LiveMore’s new proposition is significant because it attempts to address both sides of that problem.

By valuing the property on a post-removal basis and arranging professional remediation as part of the process, the lender may provide a route forward for suitable borrowers who have previously been excluded.

The solution will not apply to every property or every client.

Some installations may be capable of specialist assessment without removal. Others may reveal extensive roof defects that require further work. Borrowers must still meet the lender’s financial and product criteria, and the final valuation must support the proposed loan.

Yet the broader message is important.

Spray foam insulation does not always mean a property is permanently unmortgageable.



It does mean that the lender, valuation, technical evidence and remediation route need to be considered together before the transaction progresses.

For homeowners whose remortgage has failed, sellers who have lost a buyer or older borrowers unable to release equity, that distinction may provide the first credible route out of a problem that previously appeared impossible to solve.