Want to rent my flat, but no buy-to-let mortgage...?

DrGUID

You *must* have permission to let out your property from the lender. Were the lender to find out the place could be repossessed as you've breached the terms of your mortgage.

You are also placing your prospective tenants in a huge legal black hole by doing this.

I've been repossessed twice, so I know what a pain it is when amateur landlords don't know what they're doing.

Don't risk it!

stuart30

DrGUID wrote: »

You *must* have permission to let out your property from the lender. Were the lender to find out the place could be repossessed as you've breached the terms of your mortgage.

You are also placing your prospective tenants in a huge legal black hole by doing this.

I've been repossessed twice, so I know what a pain it is when amateur landlords don't know what they're doing.

Don't risk it!

Silly question maybe...but how would his mortgage company even know he has rented it out.?

itsgototstop

carolt wrote: »

I pity your poor tenants.

Is there anything else you're planning to not do by the book? Gas safety certificates, perhaps? Protecting the deposit? Energy certificates?

You do know about all of these don't you?

Not to say maintaining the property adequately when the central heting/cooker/etc suddenly stops working...

I do hate amateur landlords.

If you can't afford to rent, don't. Sell.

To the OP, If you get a post like this put on ignore, its your thread, you are looking for help, posts like the above are aggressive and un needed, hope it all works out for you.

Ins is a must.

But many do not get mort approval even tho they should

Good luck

silvercar

Silly question maybe...but how would his mortgage company even know he has rented it out.?

The tenant could tell them, or a nosy neighbour.


Most people doing letting without consent get away with it. The only time you could come unstuck is if you got into arrears and the lender sent someone round to visit. The risk is that your tenants could sue you, if they got evicted because you let without consent, whereas if you had permission the lender would allow the tenants to remain until the tenancy ends.

barnaby-bear

sarah_elton wrote: »

Lou - another thought. You don't say if you're going away overseas. If you are, you should seriously consider using a managing agent to manage the rental property. If you're going to manage it yourself, you need to be contactable during UK business hours at least in case there are any urgent repairs needed by the tenants.

A managing agent will take a fee (about 10% of the rent I believe?) but if you're going to be out of touch then as a former private tenant I'd say please do it!

If she's going overseas she LEGALLY HAS TO have a UK agent/servable address/contact to deal with the property - technically without this the tenant does not have to pay rent.
If she isn't going to be nearby she should seriously consider how she will deal with an overflowing loo at 2am on new years eve etc...

barnaby-bear

stuart30 wrote: »

Silly question maybe...but how would his mortgage company even know he has rented it out.?

I've grassed LLs up - just to cause trouble because they've been rubbish at many aspects - usually at the end of a tenancy, also tended to tell the tax people as this sort of muppet usually not doing what they should there; lots of tenants check land registry to work out mortgage company and assess stability and royal mail forwarding isn't very good so mortgage correspondence usually slips through and is quite obvious....

barnaby-bear

silvercar wrote: »

Lou isi going away according to his first post. What is better an empty property or one that provides a home for someone not in a position to buy?

If going away really does need someone as an agent managing the property being a proper LL is a business not one you can collect rent for and not attend to repairs/issues promptly because backpacking in thailand etc.... a home is not somewhere where people are stuck with no loo/heating/serious issues for weeks trying to contact some muppet miles away having to drag in council/environmental health/shelter....

bordercars

barnaby-bear wrote: »

I've grassed LLs up -

notice thats plural any reason.
I have tenants, and they stay because we do the right thing. tenants do bring their own problems and good one's are hard to find but easy to keep if your'e on the ball.

barnaby-bear

bordercars wrote: »

notice thats plural any reason.
I have tenants, and they stay because we do the right thing. tenants do bring their own problems and good one's are hard to find but easy to keep if your'e on the ball.

I lived in rented for 10+ years, several contract jobs, 3 degrees, different areas, needed different size houses, had landlords sell up, moved in with Mrs. B - over that time came across several muppets with rubbish LAs who annoyed me.... clauses forbidding kids and pets, downright unreasonable clauses - bans on changing gas/telephone suppliers, views on maintenance and timescales that were interesting with excuses about their cash flows, dodgy accommodation/ faulty appliances/electrics, lack of gas safety certificates... the worst are the LLs who've lived there themselves or are new to btl and only have one/two properties.... the best the old school who own several they have for years where spending money on maintenance doesn't cut into the mortgage costs... quite frankly I had better things to do than spend hours reasoning with the monkeys employed by LAs so if a landlord was a bother got very good at ensuring they got their karma back in the future.... never lost a deposit either despite a few feeble attempts....

carolt

silvercar wrote: »

Carolt, if you read #11 you will see that changing mortgages will cost £5-7k so OP would have less money available to cover repairs etc.

In an ideal world of course everyone should get the lender's consent.

In an ideal world the lender wouldn't try to rip people off when they have difficult financial decisions to make.

Lou isi going away according to his first post. What is better an empty property or one that provides a home for someone not in a position to buy?

(BTW I agree deposit protection and certificates are essential, as is declaring the rental income to HMRC.)

Like I said, they DO have a choice. They can sell.

The OP doesn't have to rent - if s/he can't afford to rent her place legally, s/he should sell. So then the property will not be empty - it will be used as someone's home.

As a tenant, I would be horrified if I discovered tha I was renting off someone doing it illegally, as it would mean I had no rights at all in the case of repossession.

And re 'how would the lender know'?

As a tenant, if I discovered my landlord had been cheating me of my rights in this way, the very first thing I'd do when I left would be to inform the HMRC, the lender and anyone else I could think of!

What a selfish, greedy 'landlord' - if the OP can't afford to let, as I said, s/he should SELL.