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

socrates

rl290 wrote: »

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

My whole take on this is based on the OP saying that IF the LR shows the address of the LL is the same as the one the tenant is renting at - then they do not have consent to let.

I aint necessarily so - in the words of a famous song.

I would welcome legislation - BUT its not there.

Any tenant can ask as you say HOWEVER not ALL lenders provide.

My other point about the OP is that they never ever talk about bad tenants and all the horror stories. Its only ever 'BTL LL does this' and 'BTL LL does that' - all of it negative.

Like I have said before for every house repossessed from a LL I would say there there were a hundred bad tenant stories (at least)

Remember - these are LL's that have actively NOT paid their mortgage.

I would say the amount of LL that do not have consent and do rent far outnumber the former. Ultimately they have more to lose - if something goes wrong like a buildings claim for fire damage.

Its a risk like any business - I will say it again I do not condone it but I can empathize.

franklee

socrates wrote: »

Like I have said before for every house repossessed from a LL I would say there there were a hundred bad tenant stories (at least)

Remember - these are LL's that have actively NOT paid their mortgage.

I would say the amount of LL that do not have consent and do rent far outnumber the former. Ultimately they have more to lose - if something goes wrong like a buildings claim for fire damage.

Its a risk like any business - I will say it again I do not condone it but I can empathize.

Of course the main reason for the tenant asking is a worry about the landlord getting repossessed. But the thing I ask myself is why do so many landlords not get consent to let? From the discussions on here it seems it's because accidental landlords nowadays often cannot afford to pay the extra that could be asked by the lender to cover the higher risk. Also perhaps that the landlord doesn't have much equity so the lender would not consider the rental income enough.

That indicates to me a landlord running the letting on a shoe string and quite likely having to pay a top up over the rent to meet the mortgage payments. That indicates to me a landlord probably not being able to afford repairs, or to pay a reputable agent while at the same time not really understanding a landlord's obligations. That's before the chuck the tenant out to move back in and/or wanting viewings to achieve a sale. All in all too much hassle and risk for a tenant IMO.

If the landlord can afford to get consent to let and meet any extra payments that entails then why not get it? Again it tells the tenant that the landlord is likely to cut important corners.

Either way the sign to me flashes avoid.

socrates

franklee wrote: »

Of course the main reason for the tenant asking is a worry about the landlord getting repossessed. But the thing I ask myself is why do so many landlords not get consent to let? From the discussions on here it seems it's because accidental landlords nowadays often cannot afford to pay the extra that could be asked by the lender to cover the higher risk. Also perhaps that the landlord doesn't have much equity so the lender would not consider the rental income enough.

That indicates to me a landlord running the letting on a shoe string and quite likely having to pay a top up over the rent to meet the mortgage payments. That indicates to me a landlord probably not being able to afford repairs, or to pay a reputable agent while at the same time not really understanding a landlord's obligations. That's before the chuck the tenant out to move back in and/or wanting viewings to achieve a sale. All in all too much hassle and risk for a tenant IMO.

If the landlord can afford to get consent to let and meet any extra payments that entails then why not get it? Again it tells the tenant that the landlord is likely to cut important corners.

Either way the sign to me flashes avoid.

All good points - however a totally genuine LL who does have consent to let who gets asked for proof from a tenant of his consent to let - may also see a sign that flashes and not let to this tenant.

Its a real quandry - my personal opinion is that the rent deposit scheme is the first step by the government to:

- getting a register of all people who are renting out a property

- finding out how much the rent is compared to what they declare

- deciding if theres a special tax they can come up with to deal with BTL

- even more regulation surrounding BTL

All sounds good to the BTL haters but remember with the borrowing criteria tightened up and a move towards the American system of less ownership more renting - the country will need BTL LL'S

franklee

socrates wrote: »

All good points - however a totally genuine LL who does have consent to let who gets asked for proof from a tenant of his consent to let - may also see a sign that flashes and not let to this tenant.

As I said before I emphasise that I'd ask nicely with reasoning why I was asking. If a landlord took offence at that then he/she isn't the landlord for me. Also he/she finds out I am not the tenant for him/her. So one simple question and both sides are immediately better off (although I'm still not quite clear why a polite request on this would be offensive especially in this credit crunch (depression?) time).

socrates wrote: »

Its a real quandry - my personal opinion is that the rent deposit scheme is the first step by the government to:

- getting a register of all people who are renting out a property

- finding out how much the rent is compared to what they declare

- deciding if theres a special tax they can come up with to deal with BTL

- even more regulation surrounding BTL

Yes, I agree. The BTL landlord is a bit of a sitting target.

socrates wrote: »

All sounds good to the BTL haters but remember with the borrowing criteria tightened up and a move towards the American system of less ownership more renting - the country will need BTL LL'S

Of course not all tenants are BTL haters. I just like things done properly and to do the best I can to make my own life as stress free as I possibly can. I figure my landlord and I needed to have a fundamental difference opinion of the property market in order for us to do business so without him (or others like him) I would have had to buy at a time when I thought it was madness. So I don't hate him.

In other countries where renting is a more stable way of life tenants have more rights, more security of tenure and control over access. I think that the UK may head this way, in particular the Section 21 notice, that was meant to be a totally "no fault needed; I want my property back" from the landlord is clearly abused. But without this notice BTL becomes much less attractive. The first step to eroding the "power" of the S21 came in with the recent deposit protection legislation. I expect the so called "retaliatory eviction" may be next as I believe some of the housing charities are campaigning against this. In my view the deposit protection legislation altering the power of the S21 sets a worrying precedent for landlords in an if you abuse it you may lose it type of way. IMHO.

tbs624

socrates wrote: »

.....Its a real quandry - my personal opinion is that the rent deposit scheme is the first step by the government to:

- getting a register of all people who are renting out a property

- finding out how much the rent is compared to what they declare ..

Wouldn't this be a good thing? Surely you'd agree that all LLs should properly declare their rental income?

The problem is that those who fail to seek consent to let also often seem to be the ones who fail to comply with other regs and who "forget" to register with HMRC. I don't think that anyone who lets property should be able to operate "under the radar".

socrates

tbs624 wrote: »

Wouldn't this be a good thing? Surely you'd agree that all LLs should properly declare their rental income?

The problem is that those who fail to seek consent to let also often seem to be the ones who fail to comply with other regs and who "forget" to register with HMRC. I don't think that anyone who lets property should be able to operate "under the radar".

I do agree fundamentally with all legislation that improves things for BOTH sides.

However these boards are full of BTL LL haters - its getting persoanl and silly. If you do not like your LL then move on - not all LL's are bad just like all tenants are not bad.

Its a 2 way street give and take.

People who invested wisely at the right time have a decent LTV and perform their duties as a LL are within their rights to make money. Accidental LL's have a lot to learn and they are learning it at the wrong time.

bobbadog

My landlady regularly (and exceptionally regularly just recently) gets post sent to her at the flat which we rent, from Alliance and Leicester/ I presume that's who her mortgage is, and as we moved in 19 months ago, that her 2-year rate is about to come to an end as the post has massively increased as late! I forward it on to the address she lives at, but I think her mortgage company reckons she lives in the flat I let. Morally, should I inform them that she doesnt?

cantbehelped

I let my property out - I had to otherwise I wouldnt be able to afford the repayments. I asked my mortgage company and they said no I wasnt allowed to let it. But I did anyway, I had no other choice exceot rent or reposession.
The people in my house are friends of a friend and they are aware of the situation. I have to get my mortgage statements etc delivered to the house (although I am going to get a redirection done I think).
I'd have loved for me to do it properly ...

silvercar

bobbadog wrote: »

My landlady regularly (and exceptionally regularly just recently) gets post sent to her at the flat which we rent, from Alliance and Leicester/ I presume that's who her mortgage is, and as we moved in 19 months ago, that her 2-year rate is about to come to an end as the post has massively increased as late! I forward it on to the address she lives at, but I think her mortgage company reckons she lives in the flat I let. Morally, should I inform them that she doesnt?

Morally, you don't intefere in her business. Morally you could inform the tax authorities if you suspect that the income hasn't been declared (or more likely the loss)

As a protection for you as a tenant, you may want to inquire of the landlord if she has consent to let and if so why post is coming to you. You then have the knowledge on what could happen if she got into arrears. If I had a sudden increase in post I may acidentally open one of the letters and check there weren't arrears.

What action you take depends on whether you want to remain as a tenant and for how long.

silvercar

cantbehelped wrote: »

I let my property out - I had to otherwise I wouldnt be able to afford the repayments. I asked my mortgage company and they said no I wasnt allowed to let it. But I did anyway, I had no other choice exceot rent or reposession.
The people in my house are friends of a friend and they are aware of the situation. I have to get my mortgage statements etc delivered to the house (although I am going to get a redirection done I think).
I'd have loved for me to do it properly ...

Please tell us you have the correct building insurance and gas certificates.