Rented House Being Repossessed

silvercar

Whether the landlord knew about the iminent repossession is a matter for debate. In the current market, who knows how quickly lenders will act. The point is that the landlord would be in breach of the tenancy if the repossession meant that the tenant was evicted. The problem comes because there is little the tenant can do about it. Take them to court and sue the landlord incurs costs and there is little chance of the landlord paying any penalty as he/she has no money. If they had money the wouldn't have been repossessed in the first place.

wymondham

silvercar wrote: »

Whether the landlord knew about the iminent repossession is a matter for debate. In the current market, who knows how quickly lenders will act. The point is that the landlord would be in breach of the tenancy if the repossession meant that the tenant was evicted. The problem comes because there is little the tenant can do about it. Take them to court and sue the landlord incurs costs and there is little chance of the landlord paying any penalty as he/she has no money. If they had money the wouldn't have been repossessed in the first place.

I think we will be seeing lots more of these problems as some BTL's come unstuck. Is there anything concrete a tenant can do to protect themselves from this sort of problem? - some insurance etc??

silvercar

Tenants can download the deeds from land registry. For £3 they will see, if there is a mortgage, if there are any other charges on the property. If the property was bought as a BTL the registered address of the owner will not be the property address, the same is true if the landlord has remortgaged it while letting it.

If the registered address is the address of the property then either the lender thinks the landlord is living there or the landlord has got consent to lease from the lender. No way of knowing which, though if the registration dates are very recent, the landlord may have just bought the property and fraudulently claimed it was as owner occupier.

Nothing is foolproof, as the owner of the property the landlord can use the property as security for anything he wants, always creating the risk of a repossession. If a landlord had loans/ overdrafts/ business finance from the same lender that gave him the mortgage, the lender has the right to use the property as security for any monies lent.

Premier_2

poppy10 wrote: »

I thought if the owner had a BTL mortgage, or had consent to let on the property, then the mortgage company was obliged to honour the AST?

Not that I'm aware of.

All the mortgage company is interested in is protecting their investment - if the loan is not being repaid on time as agreed, the property is at risk of being repossessed.

A BTL mortage is simply a type of mortgage offered by the lender allowing the property to be let (usually on an ASTA basis) rather than used by the borrower for their own residental purpose.

However, where a mortgage is not being repaid on time at the agreed rate, the lender may apply to the court for repossession. The court will normally allow such repossession where it is in the best interest of the lender to recover their loan and will occur irrespective of the mortgage being a BTL mortgage and/or any tenancy agreement in place still being within the fixed term.

karen310

Thanks so much for all replies (not been on pc all weekend ) so will pass all replies on to my daughter , thanks again.