RENTING? Check your LL has permission to let that property.

TJ27

carolt wrote: »

"Theoretically, if the lender finds out, it could insist that you repay the mortgage because you have broken that contract."

I routinely inform lenders that landlords are renting out their properties as part of my job. The above is absolutely correct and I have known it to happen. Very rare though.

Gorgeous_George

Most tenants are too (polite, shy, immature, lacking in confidence, unaware - use your own words) to ask for proof of permission. IMHO it should be a criminal offence to let a property without permission of the lender.

Maybe ASTs should require proof of permission. Or maybe lenders should routinely write to 'the occupier' and ask them to ring a freephone number if they are tenants.

GG

franklee

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Most tenants are too (polite, shy, immature, lacking in confidence, unaware - use your own words) to ask for proof of permission. IMHO it should be a criminal offence to let a property without permission of the lender.

Maybe ASTs should require proof of permission. Or maybe lenders should routinely write to 'the occupier' nad ask them to ring a freephone number if they are tenants.

GG

I think the thing is everyone has got a bit lax. During the boom no one really cared as there were few repossessions of rented properties and the lenders were desperate to lend. If it all want wrong no one minded, as prices were going up no one was losing money.

Things have changed now so I'd expect lenders to start being more picky on this issue just like they are being on deposit size and checking eligibility for the loan. Their risk is now increased as that guaranteed rise in house prices to bail everyone out has gone into reverse.

This is also the reason tenants should check consent to let now, the chances of their landlord going under has increased.

franklee

TJ27 wrote: »

Well of course a tenant can require it. A tenant can demand that the landlord dances naked around a pole at midnight before signing a contract if he wants to. Whether a landlord does so is another matter. But in this climate, unless he wants a void, he'd be daft to refuse. (The proof that is, not the dancing.... No, actually, in this climate the dancing bit too.)

:rotfl: Eyes up lamp post outside, would that do for the pole ...

Premier_2

carolt wrote: »

So it's only hearsay that proof of consent can be required, eh? :rolleyes: What about this in today's Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/4269824/Buy-to-let-Warning-for-accidental-landlords.html

"If you decide to go ahead and rent out your property, your first step should be to inform your mortgage lender. "If you fail to do this, you are in breach of the mortgage contract," Ms Bien says. "Theoretically, if the lender finds out, it could insist that you repay the mortgage because you have broken that contract." Many corporate tenants will insist that you provide proof of your lender's consent before signing a contract."

[STRIKE]Theoretically[/STRIKE], Actually, most if not all mortgage lenders can insist on a repayment in full subject to 28 days notice, no reason required.

silvercar

silvercar wrote:

Its all largely irrelevant; many LLs have other businesses on which they have given personal guarantees. If the business collapses, owing the bank money, the bank will come looking for assets of the LL. They could then easily get a charge on the LLs property and could therefore move to sieze it, regardless of the correct BTL mortgage, regardless of tenant's rights under an AST to which the bank is not party.

franklee wrote:

For the other point the tenant will be able to see from the land registry entry if there are other charges and if so perhaps avoid that property. So it's really just the mortgage that I'm interested in. It really does seem landlords here do not wish to co-operate on this issue of consent to let. I wonder why. (If the tenancy pre-dates the mortgage (and presumably other charges) then the tenancy holds in any case but of course any notice the tenancy agreement allows for can still be given).

Personal guarantees are not secured loans. Only if the borrower defaulted would the lender go through the courts to secure the debt on the property and subsequently to sieze the property.

franklee

The point I was making is that I think the tenant would have priority if he was in-situ before the loans were secured on the property. So if it wasn't there on commencement of the tenancy as far as the tenant is concerned it doesn't matter other than that he may be given correct notice under the AST which is fair enough anyway. Hence a tenant should look at the charges present before taking the tenancy. Of course some charges may already be in the pipeline awaiting the land registry to be updated in which case that's bad luck for the tenant. It really is about time tenants get to credit check their landlords as having a landlord go under on them is a lot of stress and expense for a tenant.

PROFESSIONAL_LANDLORD

carolt wrote: »

Wrong.

This tenant - and I would imagine most - would welcome a landlord registration scheme and certificate.

Let's face it - would we rather have an unprofessional landlord or a professional one? One who'd thought about their responsibilities as a landlord in advance, or one who'd just stumbled into it in desperation, with no knowledge of what was involved, just a desperate need to cover next month's morgage bill?

Um....I wonder.

https://www.landlordregistrationscotland.gov.uk/Pages/Process.aspx?Command=ShowHomePage&Reset=true&SessionToken=53481ca2-f48b-4361-b406-84d44968815f#


Certainly not worked in Scotland, not policed at all, many LL's are not registered! a money making scheme which is a SHAM.


Councils could check if a LL is registered when they are notified of an ingoing tenant or, a LHA claim but they dont! ...:mad:








.

MissMoneypenny

Just bumping this as landlords on this site are still advising other posters not to ask their lender for permission to let. Without that permission to let, the tenant could be thrown out with little or no notice, instead of the normal 2 months notice.

Corporations, Housing Associations and Councils ask landlords for proof from their mortgage lender that they have permission to let. Private tenants should ask for this proof too. Beware that many letting agents don't ask landlords for this proof to let, so don't think you are safe if you rent through a letting agent.

socrates

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Just bumping this as landlords on this site are still advising other posters not to ask their lender for permission to let. Without that permission to let, the tenant could be thrown out with little or no notice, instead of the normal 2 months notice.

Corporations, Housing Associations and Councils ask landlords for proof from their mortgage lender that they have permission to let. Private tenants should ask for this proof too. Beware that many letting agents don't ask landlords for this proof to let, so don't think you are safe if you rent through a letting agent.

Councils do not necessarily ask for any proof .

You make all these sweeping statements and spread all this doom and gloom. Its interesting that they are very few posts on here from people who have actually been turfed out onto the street.

Like I have said before and I will say it again - there is NO legislation in place for your OP, the Land Registry does not prove if a LL has consent to let and there is no standard letter provided by ALL the lenders to cover this point.

I do not condone renting without consent but it happens and the Lenders gladly get their mortgages serviced and are none the wiser.

There are also a lot of tenants who do not pay their rent on time or do not pay it all and leave properties without notice or in a state - these by FAR outnumber the situation that you describe.

So perhaps you should balance your threads a bit more and talk about bad tenants.