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

franklee

And what can go wrong!

Landlady was repossessed, can the agency keep any of our deposit?
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1464187

rl290

Why are there all the hostilities in this thread??!?!?!?

I am a landlord. I did not buy with a buy-to-let mortgage, so it would not show up on the land registry. Instead I have "consent to let" from my mortgage lender. If a tenant ever wanted me to prove that I was allowed to let out my property, I would simply fax over a copy of the letter from my mortgage lender proving this. It's no big deal: I would be more than happy to offer it.

Socrates rightly points out that sweeping statements (e.g. "Check the land registry - they'll know!") are incorrect. If a tenant is ever in doubt, just ask the letting agent or LL - if you don't receive proof that they are allowed to let to your satisfaction, then walk away. No big deal.

Thanks to the original poster for highlighting that tenants should be aware of this issue. It is certainly worth bearing in mind in the current economic climate.

R

silvercar

I have a BTL mortgage, all my original documents state this but also say the amount of the mortgage and the interest rate - something I don't necessarily want to give to prospective tenants. Any letters since the mortgage was taken out (change of interest rate / annual statements) also give more information than I would want to give to tenants. I asked if they produce a letter showing the mortgage was BTL that I could show to tenants; the answer was no.

MissMoneypenny

silvercar wrote: »

I have a BTL mortgage, all my original documents state this but also say the amount of the mortgage and the interest rate - something I don't necessarily want to give to prospective tenants.

The deeds of your Buy to Let on the Land Registry website (costing just £3 to download a deed) will show that your home address is different from your Buy to Let address.

Radiantsoul

silvercar wrote: »

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.

Guarantees can be secured against a property in the same way that secured loans are. Most guarantees are secured in this way(for example directors of limited companies often have to guarantee the business debts and these are secured against their residential property).

silvercar

I've given personal guarantees (as director) and they don't show up as charges on the deeds.

If I defaulted my bank would go after the BTL as it has the mortgage on it (coincidentally). The terms of the mortgage state that the security can be used to secure any debts I have, fairly standard term I understand.

Just thought that the guarantees don't matter as the mortgage has consent to let so the bank would be obliged to acknowledge tenancy. I think.

socrates

This is getting boring.

Here are the FACTS:

Address of LL on Land Registry proves nothing - consent or no consent

Not ALL lenders provide a letter to confirm consent to let

There is no legislation or obligation on the LL to provide this consent to let to the tenant.

We all agree (on both sides of this fence) that there SHOULD be a proper system but there is NOT one in place.

No amount of posts in this thread will change that.

So what do we do now go all the way back to the beginning and argue it all out again?

silvercar

At the risk of argueing again,

Address of LL on Land Registry proves nothing - consent or no consent

proves nothing if they are the same, proves consent if they are different.

rl290

silvercar wrote: »

I have a BTL mortgage, all my original documents state this but also say the amount of the mortgage and the interest rate - something I don't necessarily want to give to prospective tenants.

Provide a copy of the letter, blacking out the bits they don't need to see. This is often done when someone requests a document about them under the data protection act, but where the document also contains information on other people - the unnecessary details are blanked out.

*************************

Socrates, I agree with all your points. However, just because there is no legal right for the tenant to know if there is a right-to-let, it does not mean that the tenant cannot ask for proof. The LL has every right to refuse this. If the LL does wish to comply with the request, there will always be a document around - either the original BTL agreement letter (see first paragraph re: blanking out unnecessary details) or a consent to let letter.

I really don't see what all the fuss is about - the tenant can ASK for whatever they want (proof to let, extra furniture, lower rent, free internet, pets, etc). The LL can refuse any of these requests.

R

franklee

rl290 wrote: »

Provide a copy of the letter, blacking out the bits they don't need to see. This is often done when someone requests a document about them under the data protection act, but where the document also contains information on other people - the unnecessary details are blanked out.

*************************

Socrates, I agree with all your points. However, just because there is no legal right for the tenant to know if there is a right-to-let, it does not mean that the tenant cannot ask for proof. The LL has every right to refuse this. If the LL does wish to comply with the request, there will always be a document around - either the original BTL agreement letter (see first paragraph re: blanking out unnecessary details) or a consent to let letter.

I really don't see what all the fuss is about - the tenant can ASK for whatever they want (proof to let, extra furniture, lower rent, free internet, pets, etc). The LL can refuse any of these requests.

R

Thanks, at last a sensible approach to this from a landlord.

It's fairly obvious that a landlord can supply something if he wished to. If he doesn't then that's his choice but the conversation will give the tenant some information about the landlord's attitude if nothing else.

I would be happy with a copy of something recent with small sensitive bits blanked out.