Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    paulhutch
    Do I get consent to let from lender to rent out my house?
    • #1
    • 25th Aug 10, 5:44 PM
    Do I get consent to let from lender to rent out my house? 25th Aug 10 at 5:44 PM
    Hi
    My wife and I have had a residential mortgage for 4 years with a perfect payment history. We are moving to Hong Kong for approx 2-3 years. Some very good friends of ours are going to rent our house. The agreed rent is considerably lower than the mortgage payments which is fine by us as we have somewhere to store our things and also have someone we can trust 100% in the house. The mortgage lender is Northern Rock. They say they, to get a consent to let,
    - must have 30% equity
    (we have no where near)
    -the incoming rent must be 120% of the mortgage payment

    We intend to set out a tennancy agreement, get gas safety certs and get land lords insurance. We are also extremely confident of NOT failing the mortgage payments.
    Do we really need to get consent to let from the lender?
    How could the lender find out?
    What would be the reprocusions for landlord and tennent?
    Advice please, many thanks.
Page 2
    • NEH
    • By NEH 26th Aug 10, 9:57 AM
    • 2,411 Posts
    • 1,896 Thanks
    NEH
    ""If you do a search on here you will find plenty of stories of people who have had done what you are suggesting only for it go horribly wrong"


    show us just one link please ? There has never been ANY repossessions in the last 11 years for not having consent to let.... Lenders dont care to spend time and money on pointless court cases to repossess.. all they care about is getting their money every month....

    Tenants on this forum get quite hysterical about "consent to let" and the truth is that there is no link between insurers and lenders.... The LL has separate contracts with each.

    Lenders insist that landlords have the property insured.. and yet... with all the properties i own... only ONE lender annually asks me to provide annual proof that i have their property insured.... i do, of course i do, but the other lenders don't know if i am insured or not, as the dont ask after the first year.

    When i have had claims on my insurance, claims-adjusters who have come to look at the problem dont ak "have you got consent" they just crack on and sort it out.

    OP has been given good advice about the rent and tax tho... you need to contact HMRC to sort this out..

    Finally, even tho they are friends, what will you do if the tenancy goes wrong ? There have been stories, and they crop up fairly regularly here, of friends taking the mick and if that happens- how are you going to manage court action if you have to evict them from half way round the world ? If the freinds circumstances change and they want to leave after a year, what will you do then ?

    If you then decided to do this anyway, and got a lettings agent involved, the cost to you of their fees, might wipe out any house price increase gain which you are hoping to rely on...

    I let my home to friends years ago when i was abroad and they did not pay the rent at all !!!

    There is a lot to think about
    Originally posted by clutton

    I'm sorry i didn't have time last night, i wasn't meaning about repossessions i never said that, i just know i read a thread a while back about the penalties it entailed...

    I was also commenting on the fact that my hubby was asked about permission to let when enquiring about ladnlord's insurance...

    Clutton can i ask then you think you can get away with it then? (just curious)
  • clutton
    i know some landlords who do.... i dont agree with it.. but i can sometimes see how greedy lenders put folks into an impossible situation where they cannot live there but cannot pay the mortgage unless they do rent out... catch 22.....
    Last edited by clutton; 26-08-2010 at 10:40 AM.
  • tbs624
    Tenants on this forum get quite hysterical about "consent to let" and the truth is that there is no link between insurers and lenders....
    Originally posted by clutton
    Clutton - why have you got into this habit of (a) describing other posters as "hysterical" if they post an alternative view to your own and (b) assuming that you know who or what (T/OO/LL) the other posters are?

    paulhutch - it's highly likely that as part of the pressure on government to address this issue, closer attention will be paid by both lenders and insurers.

    You may be 100% trusting of your friends/potential tenants at the moment but 2-3 years is a fair amount of time. If there is any dispute that arises between you, they may choose to notify your lender. Better that the lender hears it from you and that appropriate arrangements are in place from the start.

    What Clutton is saying about her personal experience may have absolutely no relevance to you, in the same way that someone who speeds but has yet to be caught doing so can tell you that its fine for you to speed too. She is also ignoring the possibility that the very fact that she is not asked the question may well be because her insurers already know that she has either a BTL or CTL in place. The information is readily available to insurers and, as the others have pointed out, you may find just when you need your insurance company to be paying out they will not do so. There is usually something n the small print along the lines of "is there anything else/any other material fact that you think we (the ins co) should be aware of?"

    Clutton repeatedly posts on here about Ts who don't tell the truth in their tenancy application forms and yet conversely seems to think that its okay for LLs to lie/omit to tell their mortgagor what they are up to. Double standards?


    Edit: ah, I see that Clutton has since edited her post to say that she "does not agree with it" , whereas before it simply said "i know some LLs who do" .....


    For anyone who'd like to know more see the "sticky" up at the top of the Board about consent to let.
    Last edited by tbs624; 26-08-2010 at 2:06 PM.
    • MissMoneypenny
    • By MissMoneypenny 27th Aug 10, 12:54 PM
    • 5,175 Posts
    • 8,425 Thanks
    MissMoneypenny
    We intend to set out a tennancy agreement, get gas safety certs and get land lords insurance.
    Originally posted by paulhutch
    Make sure you get it in writing from your insurer's underwriters, that they will still pay out (and pay out for a full payment) even though you do not have permission to let out your property from your mortgage lenders. Insurers are quite happy to take your premiums, but it is another matter when they have to pay out and that is when they do their checks. It is up to you to give your insurers the full facts. Hide facts at your own peril.


    We are also extremely confident of NOT failing the mortgage payments.
    Originally posted by paulhutch
    Every person who gets a mortgage is confident of not missing a mortgage payments. Sadly, the figures show that many do. Can you afford to pay the mortgage if you have voids? Or if your tenant doesn't pay and you have to let them run into arrears for 2 months before taking them to apply to the courts? Have you got the money to have voids and repair the property, if the tenant smashes the property up and does a runner? Can you pay your repairs such as a new boiler or roof repairs? A missed mortgage payment will impede on your credit rating for the next 6 years. Gone are the days when lenders will overlook poor credit ratings.


    Do we really need to get consent to let from the lender?
    Originally posted by paulhutch
    Yes. You signed a mortgage agreement for a residential mortgage and you are required to tell them of any changes.

    How could the lender find out?
    Originally posted by paulhutch
    Lots of ways. Anybody can look on Land Registry for just £4 and see that your lender has you down as living at that property and not at another address. That same document also gives the name of your mortgage lender so it is easy to know who to inform about your letting without consent.

    Your mail from the lender will go to that address. You can get a redirect, but that service has a limited time span and letters can still slip through and get delivered to that address. Even if the redirect works, the tenant can address an envelope to you at their address and see if that envelope drops of their doorstep or yours.

    Internet. This isn't the only site that warns people to check that their landlord/prospective landlord has consent from their mortgage lender to rent the property.

    Credit reference agencies. The government are already paying Experian for every benefit cheat they find and I'm sure it won't take mortgage lenders long to realise they can use this service to find their cheats too. It's easy to run a simple query on a database such as the credit agencies have and find out who else comes up with the same address as the mortgage borrower.


    What would be the reprocusions for landlord and tennent?
    Originally posted by paulhutch
    For You.
    Mortgage lenders exchange information with each other and you will end up with a black mark against your name for future lending. The mortgage lender can then either demand that the mortgage be repaid or make you pay a higher rate of interest for renting out without their consent. Don't expect them to be lenient if you can't afford that new high rate: it is better for the lender to get rid of bad mortgage borrowers sooner, rather than later even if they make a loss on that borrower through repossession.. Mortgage companies sell their mortgages to other companies with a rating and they get a much better price for AAA (good borrowers) rates. Borrowers having little equity in the property, are not good for mortgage lenders in these uncertain times.

    The tenant can sue you. There is a time limit on this (6 years?), so if you don't have any money now, they can sue you when you do. If they don't know how to do this, they can come to sites like this one and get advice on how simple this is to do. Many won’t even realise that they have the means to do this through their content insurance. The insurers pay the legal team to sue you and then claim their legal fees from you. You may get away with this if the tenant decides it is easier to get money from the letting agent and sue them instead.

    If you need benefits, your rental house will prevent you from getting many benefits.

    For the Tenant
    If you fail to pay your mortgage, the tenant and their family will get thrown out with little or no notice. The lender will not recognise the contract you gave the tenant as you did not get their Consent to Let. There is a new law coming in that will give tenants 2 months to find somewhere else, but the lender still will not recognise the fixed term: so someone who has a 6 month contract with you, will be thrown out. They can sue you, but that will not ease the distress you have caused them and their family at the time.

    Advice please, many thanks.
    Originally posted by paulhutch
    Financial: That will depend on how much financial risk are you prepared to take.

    Morally: We all know that there are certain types of people who will let out their house without consent from the lender without any thought for their tenants and their family: so it all boils down to, are you a decent person or not?
    RENTING? Have you checked to see that your landlord has permission from their mortgage lender to rent the property? If not, you could be thrown out with very little notice.
    Read the sticky on the House Buying, Renting & Selling board.


    • MissMoneypenny
    • By MissMoneypenny 27th Aug 10, 1:08 PM
    • 5,175 Posts
    • 8,425 Thanks
    MissMoneypenny
    i know some landlords who do.... i dont agree with it.. but i can sometimes see how greedy lenders put folks into an impossible situation where they cannot live there..
    Originally posted by clutton
    That has nothing to do with greedy lenders and everything to do with the borrowers having financial problems. Some people will recognise they have made mistakes and learn from them: while others will always look for someone else to blame

    but cannot pay the mortgage unless they do rent out... catch 22.....
    Originally posted by clutton
    Unfortunately they are some types of people who will happily pass their fianancial problems onto unsuspecting families. One can only hope that karma rules.
    RENTING? Have you checked to see that your landlord has permission from their mortgage lender to rent the property? If not, you could be thrown out with very little notice.
    Read the sticky on the House Buying, Renting & Selling board.


  • FraudBuster
    Be aware.

    Identification of undisclosed Buy-to-Let risk

    When a customer lets out their home without advising their mortgage lender, it means the debt is incorrectly priced and risk is increased. Getting early notification of properties to rent with Mover Alerts allows the lender to be proactive in protecting its position.
    http://www.experian.co.uk/consumer-information/mover-alerts-information.html
    • silvercar
    • By silvercar 27th Aug 10, 1:40 PM
    • 36,208 Posts
    • 153,068 Thanks
    silvercar
    A lot of scaremongering on here.

    I'll just pick one bit of codswallop:

    The tenant can sue you. There is a time limit on this (6 years?), so if you don't have any money now, they can sue you when you do.
    by MissMoneypenny
    The tenant can only sue you if they have incurred a loss ie they cannot sue you for not obtaining consent to let. They can only sue you if they have been evicted as a result of you not obtaining consent to let. Big difference.
    • MissMoneypenny
    • By MissMoneypenny 27th Aug 10, 1:53 PM
    • 5,175 Posts
    • 8,425 Thanks
    MissMoneypenny
    A lot of scaremongering on here.
    Originally posted by silvercar
    Hello Silvercar. You do/did a lot of trying to courage people to let out without their lenders permission. Is your theory that the more who don't get Consent to Let, the less risk there is of getting caught? I would have thought that the reverse is true. Lenders are already aware that this is a big risk to them and have reflected this in their terms and conditions. Take a look at the Nationwide thread on this site about the new terms and conditions they have brought out for existing borrowers. One of those terms is that they can impose a higher rate of interest to those borrows who let their property without Consent to Let.

    'll just pick one bit of codswallop:
    Originally posted by silvercar
    So what are the other things that you assume are "codswallop".


    The tenant can only sue you if they have incurred a loss ie they cannot sue you for not obtaining consent to let. They can only sue you if they have been evicted as a result of you not obtaining consent to let. Big difference.
    Originally posted by silvercar
    I thought that I had made that clear in my (albeit long) post, but I apologies if I didn't. However, you are wrong if you think you can only be sued for causing someone a loss: I have been awarded money by a judge, for "distress", in addition to other monies awarded.

    As others have mentioned on threads like these, we also have the law of quiet enjoyment that a landlord is required to give when they sign a contract. If the lender doesn't recoginise the contract as they didn't give their Consent to Let, how can the landlord keep to that law if the tenant is thrown out by the lender?

    Paul asked what the reprocusions would be for landlord and tenant and I told him what these were, so he could make an informed decision for himself.

    Just to add, I don't make money from letting out houses without consent (as a landlord or letting agent). When I was a landlady, I had consent from my lender. I use to be a FX trader in the city and even I wouldn't risk letting out a property without consent from the lender.
    Last edited by MissMoneypenny; 27-08-2010 at 2:24 PM.
    RENTING? Have you checked to see that your landlord has permission from their mortgage lender to rent the property? If not, you could be thrown out with very little notice.
    Read the sticky on the House Buying, Renting & Selling board.


    • silvercar
    • By silvercar 27th Aug 10, 2:17 PM
    • 36,208 Posts
    • 153,068 Thanks
    silvercar
    The scaremongering is that no-one has ever posted on here about being evicted when the landlord does keep up with repayments on a mortgage. Lenders repossess when mortgage holders fall into arrears, they don't repossess when people keep up with their repayments.

    Less than 1% of homes are repossessed. Only a small percentage of homes are rented out on owner occupier mortgages, so only a very, very few people would face eviction as tenants. Even then I would reckon that the main reason that a tenant would be evicted for a landlord not having consent to let would be if the tenant wasn't paying the rent. You are looking for a very small number of cases where CTL would make a difference:
    1. The owner would be facing repossession.
    2. the owner didn't have consent to let
    3. the tenancy agreement was in the fixed term of the AST not periodic.
    4. they met a particularly harsh judge, who refused to give time to move out.

    The important thing is to only let a property if you can afford its upkeep and maintenance.

    You make out that CTL is a wonder clause, in practice it can expire mid-tenancy. With CTL all a tenant would get is a lender taking over the tenancy, not ideal. The only difference is that the tenant would get notice to leave at the end of the fixed term rather than mid term/ On a periodic tenancy it would make no difference. Without CTL the lender would write to the property address, so the tenant should find out a landlord's difficulty sooner.

    Landlord's insurance is crucial, it protects the landlord from damage caused when the property is tenanted. CTL is nothing to do with getting the correct insurance.

    My opinion is that a BTL mortgage (or money secured elsewhere) is a far, far better way as there is no time bar on the consent, you know the landlord's intention is to let the property long term and the terms of the mortgage prevent the landlord moving into the property - preventing the cases we get on here where tenant's post that the landlord wants the property back to live in.
  • clutton
    silvercar you are bashing your head against a brick wall on this one... as am i .... a few folks on here are utterly determined that their way of looking at CTL is the only way... and are unwilling to even enter basic discussion on it.... much of these scaremongering tactics are speculative... as you say there is NO case law where a Lender has repossessed due to lack of CTL..... all that would happen is that the borrower would be moved to a higher interest rate.... which is why some LLs prefer to take the risk....

    it is Everything to do with greedy lenders.... a very short while ago the Halifax, as but one example, were charging people up to £5k to switch from a residential to a BTL product... and for some folks who - eg. had been relocated for their job - they simply did not have that sort of money.... which is why some "accidental" landlords did not get CTL - Halifax has revised its charges downwards subsequently......
  • tbs624
    A lot of scaremongering on here.

    I'll just pick one bit of codswallop:



    The tenant can only sue you if they have incurred a loss ie they cannot sue you for not obtaining consent to let. They can only sue you if they have been evicted as a result of you not obtaining consent to let. Big difference.
    Originally posted by silvercar
    Scaremongering= general term used to mean "someone has posted a comment with which I don't agree"

    Silvercar, I think I agree with MissMP's assertion that you seem to encourage letting without CTL, whilst (like Clutton) expecting your Ts to truthfully complete forms for a myriad of checks to be undertaken on them.

    I'd like to link to some other views from elsewhere, not least because two of the writers declare themselves to be solicitors. Some of the posts you will probably recognise, Silvercar , since it appears you also contributed to the thread.

    Indeed, I was particularly interested to read the advice in this post on LLzone that :

    It is important to get the correct insurance, pick a company that provides insurance to owner occupiers rather than building.insurance.for.let.properties and the lender would be none the wiser.
    Of course, by the time you come to claim on that insurance policy and discover that there is no cover for, say an injury to your T or his guests, you may well be ruing the day that you thought it okay to lie. When you come to take out any future insurance policy you do, of course, have to declare any fraudulent activity relating to other insurances you may have previously held.

    Also in that thread were the following posts:

    from Jeffrey here, here, here and this one from another Senior Member here

    Another article from a solicitor, and here's one from Feb this year in the Financial Times.

    Tenants - continue to safeguard yourselves by checking that your LL has either a CTL or a BTL if the property is mortgaged.

    The law due to be implemented late this autumn will mean that where your tenancy is recognised by your LLs mortgagor ( ie where there is CTL or BTL financing in place ) you will be entitled to a minimum of 2 months' notice should the LL default on his/her mortgage payments.
    Last edited by tbs624; 27-08-2010 at 2:52 PM.
  • tbs624
    silvercar you are bashing your head against a brick wall on this one... as am i .... a few folks on here are utterly determined that their way of looking at CTL is the only way... and are unwilling to even enter basic discussion on it.... much of these scaremongering tactics are speculative... as you say there is NO case law where a Lender has repossessed due to lack of CTL..... all that would happen is that the borrower would be moved to a higher interest rate.... which is why some LLs prefer to take the risk....
    Originally posted by clutton
    LLs cannot simply pick which laws and regulations they think apply to them and their personal situation, and ignore the ones that they may not like.

    You are also totally failing to acknowledge the distress caused to those Ts who find themselves booted out of their rented home, with very little notice, because the LL has not met his/her mg payments & failed to seek CTL or arrange BTL financing, so the lender will not acknowledge the tenancy.

    it is Everything to do with greedy lenders.... a very short while ago the Halifax, as but one example, were charging people up to £5k to switch from a residential to a BTL product... and for some folks who - eg. had been relocated for their job - they simply did not have that sort of money.... which is why some "accidental" landlords did not get CTL - Halifax has revised its charges downwards subsequently......
    Originally posted by clutton
    I would say that much of it is to do with the higher risks associated with people who are (a) already strapped for cash so may not have a contingency fund should the T default on rent and (b) intending to be amateur LLs but who know little about the PRS and what is involved.

    When you quote these figures and examples in your posts Clutton, please slap up a source for them
    Last edited by tbs624; 27-08-2010 at 2:53 PM.
  • FraudBuster
    I don't understand what the arguement is about.

    The OP asked:

    Do I get consent to let from lender to rent out my house?

    The reply is:

    Yes.
  • puddy
    but the op already said that he knows the answer will be no, and now he wants to know how to continue with his plan

    op - are you earning money in hong kong which means you can cover the mortgage?
    are your friends/tenants moving out of their own home, or dont they have a home at the moment?
    would you be doing this on an AST?
    • silvercar
    • By silvercar 27th Aug 10, 4:02 PM
    • 36,208 Posts
    • 153,068 Thanks
    silvercar
    silvercar you are bashing your head against a brick wall on this one... as am i .... a few folks on here are utterly determined that their way of looking at CTL is the only way... and are unwilling to even enter basic discussion on it.... much of these scaremongering tactics are speculative... as you say there is NO case law where a Lender has repossessed due to lack of CTL..... all that would happen is that the borrower would be moved to a higher interest rate.... which is why some LLs prefer to take the risk....

    it is Everything to do with greedy lenders.... a very short while ago the Halifax, as but one example, were charging people up to £5k to switch from a residential to a BTL product... and for some folks who - eg. had been relocated for their job - they simply did not have that sort of money.... which is why some "accidental" landlords did not get CTL - Halifax has revised its charges downwards subsequently......
    Originally posted by clutton

    and I know of lender's saying, we won't give you permission in writing, but just do it. As long as you pay the mortgage we [the lender] is not interested.



    Of course, by the time you come to claim on that insurance policy and discover that there is no cover for, say an injury to your T or his guests, you may well be ruing the day that you thought it okay to lie. When you come to take out any future insurance policy you do, of course, have to declare any fraudulent activity relating to other insurances you may have previously held.
    Originally posted by tbs624
    Of course you need insurance that allows tenants, otherwise you cannot claim for injury to tenants. Isn't that stating the obvious?


    The law due to be implemented late this autumn will mean that where your tenancy is recognised by your LLs mortgagor ( ie where there is CTL or BTL financing in place ) you will be entitled to a minimum of 2 months' notice should the LL default on his/her mortgage payments.
    So all tenants will then get at least 2 months notice, making the difference that CTL makes even more limited.


    LLs cannot simply pick which laws and regulations they think apply to them and their personal situation, and ignore the ones that they may not like.
    Originally posted by tbs624
    I agree, please tell me which law is broken when someone rents a property without consent.
    • MissMoneypenny
    • By MissMoneypenny 27th Aug 10, 11:13 PM
    • 5,175 Posts
    • 8,425 Thanks
    MissMoneypenny
    and I know of lender's saying, we won't give you permission in writing, but just do it. As long as you pay the mortgage we [the lender] is not interested.
    Originally posted by silvercar
    Really???? When other lenders are raising the interest rate of borrowers who let their property without Consent to Let? Which lender was that?
    RENTING? Have you checked to see that your landlord has permission from their mortgage lender to rent the property? If not, you could be thrown out with very little notice.
    Read the sticky on the House Buying, Renting & Selling board.


  • tbs624
    Of course you need insurance that allows tenants, otherwise you cannot claim for injury to tenants. Isn't that stating the obvious?
    Originally posted by silvercar
    Yes, I absolutely agree that it is stating the obvious but clearly stating the obvious may be what is required when a post appears on a LL Zone thread by your doppelgänger, which says, as I quoted above,:
    It is important to get the correct insurance, pick a company that provides insurance to owner occupiers rather than building.insurance.for.let.properties and the lender would be none the wiser.

    Perhaps you could confirm whether those words were your own or there is , by huge coincidence , another LL with the user name Silvercar who doesn't agree with CTL being necessary for a Ts protection?

    Please also confirm which OO insurance products would provide cover for Ts?


    So all tenants will then get at least 2 months notice, making the difference that CTL makes even more limited.
    Originally posted by silvercar
    I am not sure I understand your comment : could you clarify what you mean?





    Tenants - always check that your LL (a) owns the property outright or (b) has a BTL mortgage or (c) has their mortgagor's Consent to Let.

    When you are being asked to produce all your own personal information to the LL/LA , give the LL/LA a pre-drafted letter with the above options and ask them to delete accordingly and sign and date it.
    Last edited by tbs624; 28-08-2010 at 8:48 AM.
  • tbs624

    and I know of lender's saying, we won't give you permission in writing, but just do it. As long as you pay the mortgage we [the lender] is not interested.
    by Silvercar
    Really???? When other lenders are raising the interest rate of borrowers who let their property without Consent to Let? Which lender was that?
    Originally posted by MissMoneypenny
    It would be really helpful if posters could simply add a source for their assertions: there have been quite a few posts of late (edit:that ) contain assertions, figures, stories etc which, without a reliable reference/link, obviously amount to little more than hearsay.
    Last edited by tbs624; 29-08-2010 at 7:55 AM. Reason: to include silvercar's post, to which Miss Mp was responding
    • zzzLazyDaisy
    • By zzzLazyDaisy 28th Aug 10, 9:04 AM
    • 12,135 Posts
    • 18,762 Thanks
    zzzLazyDaisy
    I realise this is does not answer the OP's question, but it may help to consider a different viewpoint.

    I have friends abroad who I visit fairly regularly. When I am away a friend stays in my house and looks after my cat. It suits him because I live close to his place of work, and also my house is more comfortable and has more facilities (broadband, freesat, landline etc).

    He doesn't pay me rent while he is in my house, and I wouldn't expect him to - the money I save on putting my cat into a cattery more than offsets any rent I might consider to be reasonable - but on my return he does give me a small contribution towards the utility bills, which is an expense he would have had wherever he lives.
    I'm a retired employment solicitor. Hopefully some of my comments might be useful, but they are only my opinion and not intended as legal advice.
    • NEH
    • By NEH 28th Aug 10, 4:32 PM
    • 2,411 Posts
    • 1,896 Thanks
    NEH
    Can i put across another point of view, we have just been evicted because a certain bank made a mistake with repayments and our landlord can't afford the new ones, so he has to sell to pay back the money he owes to the bank....I can only assume that if he isn't able to sell that the bank will repossess.

    What would happen when you're in Hong Kong and your mortgage payments increase or they do find out you're renting out and change you to a buy to let mortgage and the payments increase so much you can't afford them, your tenant will then have the hassle of finding somewhere else to live...

    We're fortunate that we found somewhere else to live, but because of a shortage of rental properties we had to move fast with viewings, thankfully husband was able to arrange this with his work but it is very stressful and when we finally move it will of been 3 months snce notice, we just weren't able to get somewhere with 2 months notice, so please keep in mind your tenant.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

119Posts Today

3,012Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @bearface83: @MartinSLewis check out the @Missguided new 60% off offer. Upping the cost of items almost double to make us think it?s a?

  • RT @efitzpat: Thank you SO SO much @MartinSLewis for your Student Loans refund advice! I just got a grand refunded right before Xmas! Whoop?

  • Have a lovely weekend folks. Don't do anything (fiscally) that I wouldn't do!

  • Follow Martin