Management Inspection?

silvercar wrote:

So if a tenant has just signed a second 12 month AST and the landlord gets repossessed, you expect the lender to wait until the 6 month break clause to repossess?

No I didn't say that.

The tenancy agreement should have something about notice under ground 2. Or the lender may recognise the tenant. It depends on the circumstances. But it's clear that if there isn't consent to the tenancy from the lender then the tenant has NO protection against the lender.

More details:

http://www.compactlaw.co.uk/free_legal_information/private_housing/privhf14.html

Most mortgages have a condition that the property cannot be let without the prior written consent of the lender. Landlords should always seek the consent of the lender before letting their property.

This is important because any tenancies granted without the consent of the lender and after the date the mortgage was taken out will not protect the tenant(s) against the lender.

http://www.thesite.org/homelawandmoney/askthesiteqandas/housingqandas/repossessionrights

The property was purchased with a mortgage expressly for the purpose of being commercially let (sometimes known as a 'buy to let' mortgage). If this was the case the lender can apply to the court to have you evicted under Ground 2 of the Housing Act 1988. This is provided that written notice to this effect was given to you by the landlord at the start of the tenancy - although be aware that the court can waive this requirement.

EDIT
Sorry missed:

However, you may have the right to stay in the property if one of the following applies:
.... snip ....
You moved in after your landlord took out the mortgage, but the lender agreed to the tenancy;

from that second link.

I was getting my children's tea, supervising homework, that sort of thing. Sorry, didn't realise I couldn't leave my computer!

I'm not sure what it is you are asking me, but I'll do my best.

Firstly, as far as I'm aware, almost all mortgage providers insist on a landlord having consent to let from them prior to a tenancy. Most mortgage providers grant this consent as a formality.

Why would a lettings agent ask a landlord if he has consent to let? Because a professional agent would ensure, as far as they can, that their landlords have permission from their mortgage provider and are therefore complying with their obligations in that regard. Do you think that an agent should not care whether a landlord is complying with his obligations? As franklee linked to above

Most mortgages have a condition that the property cannot be let without the prior written consent of the lender. Landlords should always seek the consent of the lender before letting their property

and that's why we ask; because it's something a landlord needs to have.

I don't know if a tenant could sue a lettings agent if a landlord was repossessed and the tenant was evicted by the mortgagees in possession. I very much doubt it, since the contract is between the tenant and landlord.

What difference does that make to us asking a landlord whether he is complying with his obligations?

prudryden wrote:

Hi Rosy,
Had to do a few things myself, so you may not see this until tomorrow.

1. Yes, I agree that mortgage providers will generally have a condition in their contracts re: permission to let. As Franklee kindly pointed out, most do, but most means not all.

2. Yes, I agree that LA should ask questions e.g. gas certificates or any other item required by statute.

3. Whether a LA should ask questions about contracts between another commercial business and the landlord is open to debate. ( Specifically referring to permission to let.) If they have some liability, then I agree they should be concerned and should inquire. Contrary to your statement about any professional agent asking, there is one nationally known company that I know of that doesn't . However, that doesn't mean that shouldn't, especially if they may have some liability.

4. Here is the main point. The LA liability question is still open. You don't believe they do, nor do I, but at the moment we don't have the answer.

5. You ask what difference does it make if you ask about the LL obligations. A LL has many obligations to many different commercial organizations including the Inland Revenue, his bank etc. No LA has ever asked me if I pay my taxes or have I registered as a sole trader or paid all my bills. So why should the LA ask me about my mortgage?

Because those things don't impact directly on whether you let a property, whereas the issue of consent to let does? I don't need to know if a landlord has paid his gas bill, but I do need to know if he has consent from his mortgage provider if I am to accept his business and rent his property for him. If he gets a CCJ from powergen, that won't affect our business relationship or his tenants' tenancy. If his mortgage company repossesses the property and he has no consent to let, that does affect our business relationship with him and it can impact greatly on his tenants' tenancy.

Rosy, please don't think I am having a go. I find the discussion very interesting and I am actually trying to get an answer. You are very knowledgable and have very good ideas.

I contend that a professional agent should address the question of consent to let with a landlord. Since the agent may not confirm or investigate for themselves whether a landlord has consent to let, the agent has to rely on the landlord answering truthfully. To show due diligence, that's the most an agent can do. If a landlord says "how dare you ask me that highly personal question, I refuse to answer" then that's his right. But it would equally be our right to consider whether we would continue to accept his business.

If a particular agent chooses not to ask the question, then that is their commercial decision. It's not one I would support, personally. The Letting Centre (an organisation providing training, continuing professional development and regular legal updates) states expressly in their guidance notes that an agent should check whether the landlord has otained consent to let. I'm not quite so sad that I have a copy of the Lettings Handbook here at home, but I think it's in the first few pages, para 1.5 or thereabouts.

I think we are approaching things from different angles. You seem to be looking at it from the perspective of averting legal action from an evicted tenant and/or a DPA issue (forgive me if I have read you wrong), and I am looking at it from the perspective of providing a good, thorough and professional service to a landlord whilst complying with the regulations that we have to work under.