Credit checking prospective landlords

silvercar wrote: »

If the landlord has a mortgage, there is a requirement by the mortgage lender to have buildings insurance.

In the event of arrears, the mortgage lender would send someone to visit the property before baliffs turned up with a repossession order. In any case, letters would appear to notify the tenant, either because the landlord has a BTL mortgage and so the lender knows there are tenants or because the landlord is assumed to live at the address on a residential mortgage. Either way a tenant wouldn't first find out that the property was being repossessed on the day in question by baliffs appearing - that is just scaremongering nonsense.

My mate's LL was letting without mortgager's permission and had royal mail redirection - so mortgage company reposessed - ok they got 5 days warning from balliffs turning up but that was it. Only comeback was to sue LL who of course was going bust. Tenancy invalid as no permission to let by owner (i.e. the bank - essentially since they not LL owned he was just some third party with no right to let.

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

But presumably a credit check on the LL would not reveal this. I agree that if the lender requires the LL to get permission to let and that is not obtained, then potentially the tenancy agreement is invalid, from the Lender's point of view.

But if the lender's permission is granted, then surely, if the LL goes bankrupt, then the agreement is valid so 2 month's notice is required to evict the tenant Essentially, the lender becomes the LL and has to honour the tenancy agreement. If so, then the tenant is no worse off as the original LL could have given notice to quit, even if he'd not gone bankrupt

If the lender's permission was granted it isn't potentially invalid it's completely NON-EXISTENT - tenants need to know permission to let has been granted and few realise that the tenancy doesn't exist if no lender's permission.

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

Struggling to understand why a tenant would want to credit check the LL - is this just to show that any mortgage on the property is up to date?

So that they know that the building is not about to be repossessed by the lender, this happened to me!

silvercar, It is you who is persistently wrong on this repossession issue - you seem totally unable to read and comprehend information on this matter yet continue spreading old wives tales.

The basics are it DOES matter if the landlord has permission to let from the lender.

Without this permission the tenancy agreement is invalid and the tenant can be chucked out. This can and DOES happen with little or no notice, an example is here:

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=41015&postcount=1

So bailiffs on the doorstep isn't scaremongering. Even if the landlord isn't re-directing post, many tenants would not open the landlord's mail so could easily be unaware of what's going on.

If the landlord has permission to let from the lender (either specific written permission for a normal mortgage or having a BTL mortgage that allows letting) the tenant does have the protection of the tenancy agreement. What this means in practise depends on the details such as if the tenant was in-situ before the mortgage was taken out. But worst case it would mean the tenant is given two months notice to leave under section 8 ground 2 after which there would need to be a court application for possession. Although section 8 ground 2 allows for the two months notice to expire before the end of the fixed term that's a heck of a lot better for the tenant than little or no notice so the tenant SHOULD make sure there is permission to let from the landlord's lender. I trust you will stop denying this now!

Links for more information:

"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.compactlaw.co.uk/free_legal_information/private_housing/privhf14.html

"For ground 2, the Landlord must give two months notice."

"Ground 2
The property is subject to a mortgage and the mortgagees are repossessing the property to enforce the charge. Written notice should be given before or at the time the tenancy begins that possession may be required under this ground. (The court can sometimes allow possession under this ground even if no notice is given)."

http://www.compactlaw.co.uk/free_legal_information/private_housing/privhf2.html

"However, you may have the right to stay in the property if one of the following applies:

* You were already living in the property when the owner purchased it (you were a 'sitting tenant'), or when they took out a second mortgage;

* You moved in after your landlord took out the mortgage, but the lender agreed to the tenancy;"

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