Consent to let

veryworriedgirl

Hi,

I'm new to the forum and was hoping for some advice. My partner has a flat that we want to let out. We changed the buildings insurance to a landlord's policy and the Mortgage lender was automatically informed that the policy had changed. We asked them about consent to let and were told that we need to fill in a form and pay an administration charge. So far, so good. However the form arrived yesterday and it says that one of the criteria are that the loan to value must be less than 70% (its more like 95%), so it seems unlikely that they will give us consent. Is there any flexibility in this? What are the implications if we let without consent? In terms of other options the market is poor and it would cost us money to sell the flat. We already have a good tenant lined up.

Any advice appreciated!

Veryworriedgirl

happybroker

consequences of letting without their consent is that you will be in breach of your mortgage conditions and also that the tenancy agreement may be unenforcable as you will not have complied with it's conditions.

Speak to your lender about this and ask to be put through to the department that makes the decision to see if they are flexible as to the loan to value before paying the fee.

Good luck

JayZed

I've let my flat out without consent before (continuing to pay the mortgage as normal) and had absolutely no problems at all.

You might not find it so easy, since you've already approached your lender about consent to let, and they know that you've changed your insurance policy (I don't understand why the lender was informed that your insurance policy had changed, though - unless you're also insured by your mortgage lender?)

I'm not a professional, but I'm not convinced by the above suggestion that the tenancy agreement might be unenforceable. The tenancy agreement is between you and your tenant has nothing to do with your relationship with the mortgage company.

However, it's true that you'll be in breach of your mortgage terms, and in if the mortgage lender were to find out that you're letting without consent they would be within their rights to terminate the mortgage or to insist that you move to a (more expensive) BTL mortgage - though it sounds as though you wouldn't meet the BTL criteria.

silvercar

I'm not a professional, but I'm not convinced by the above suggestion that the tenancy agreement might be unenforceable. The tenancy agreement is between you and your tenant has nothing to do with your relationship with the mortgage company.

Agreed. Which does mean the tenants could sue you if the property got repossessed.

However, it's true that you'll be in breach of your mortgage terms, and in if the mortgage lender were to find out that you're letting without consent they would be within their rights to terminate the mortgage

They could take you to court for breaching the terms of your mortgage. They would have to convince a judge to allow them to repossess. Provided you keep up with the mortgage repayments, can't see this happening.

chameleon1977b

I'm in a similar position to the OP. My main concern with any of this is insurance. I know that one needs to obtain Landlords insurance however if not getting consent means this would be invalid then we are a little bit shafted. Would you really trust the cost of your property to the chance of it not being burnt down?

salduck

Who is your mortgage with?
x

chameleon1977b

Why does it matter who the mortgage is with? Forgive me for being somewhat cautious.

_Andy_

chameleon1977b wrote: »

Why does it matter who the mortgage is with? Forgive me for being somewhat cautious.

With regards to the bottom part of your post...I think it was useful to those thinking about doing this but I'm guessing this is a general quote.

Different lenders have different criteria. You're not giving out hugely sensitive information just by saying who your mortgage is with.

chameleon1977b

It's Northern Rock. I know as the OP said something similar that they require 30% equity in the property etc...so there no chance of that as I bought the property last year but I have a unique oportunity and covering the mortgage will be easier than it is now. I'll probably end up having to sell unless I can ensure I'm not potentially sitting on a 200k time bomb.

Typical, you wait a long time to buy and just as I think I better buy now else I wont be able to, I buy at the worst possibly time ever. Northern Rock should have never given me the mortgage in the first place. I might not have thanked them at the time but I most certaintly would now. Instead as with many people, I be stuck.