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

Imp

An interesting option would be for legislation to put a charge on your own residential house when ever you let out another house you own. Then if you fall behind on mortgage payments, the landlord's home is repossessed rather than the tenants. It should focus a few minds.

silvercar

Imp wrote: »

An interesting option would be for legislation to put a charge on your own residential house when ever you let out another house you own. Then if you fall behind on mortgage payments, the landlord's home is repossessed rather than the tenants. It should focus a few minds.

A lot of people facing repossession are the ones that have let out their main home because they can't afford the mortgage. Many people let their main home and rent elsewhere or work abroad.

Fred1_2

I hadn't thought about this before, but from now on I will be allowing potential tenants to see my mortgage company's consent to let and the land registry title document showing that I own the property. No idea what I can do to reassure anyone that I'm solvent and the house is not at any risk of repossession though.

I'm fussy about my tenants and I prefer tenants who are fussy about their landlords - we understand each other

franklee

Fred1 wrote: »

I hadn't thought about this before, but from now on I will be allowing potential tenants to see my mortgage company's consent to let and the land registry title document showing that I own the property. No idea what I can do to reassure anyone that I'm solvent and the house is not at any risk of repossession though.

I'm fussy about my tenants and I prefer tenants who are fussy about their landlords - we understand each other

If you offer to show mortgage company's consent to let and the land registry title document I'd be happy to take your word on the rest.

For repossession risk, if the tenant was still bothered and if you wanted to you could ask your lender to send you a letter stating that the mortgage is paid up to date or that the consent to let still stands. Either would indicate that there is not at the date of the letter any risk of repossession.

No one has any guarantees about the future but at least the tenant would know should things go wrong in future he will get a reasonable notice of it.

I would be far more trusting of a landlord like you who has taken the time to put his paperwork in order and demonstrate that. I do think both sides being fussy is a good sign, I read it as a sign that both sides take their responsibilities seriously. For example if a tenant just signs the tenancy agreement without having read it properly then chances are he won't adhere to it. OTOH a tenant who comes back with questions about the agreement, considered fussy and too much trouble by some landlords, will more likely keep to it, at least he knows what it says.

MissMoneypenny

my_gorgeous_ellie-belle wrote: »

I think every LL should provide some kind of BTL document as proof...it's all we really ask compared to the heaps we get checked on. AND the prospective tenant should ALWAYS be notified if the property is on the market and the property therefore only be let on say 6 month short term contracts. It wouldn't solve all problems but it sure would eliminate a fair percentage of them.

I've been absolutely sickened by the poor attitude of some landlords and letting agents on MSE and singingpig, on this subject. Some have a complete disregard for other human beings.

I think the bottom line is, if the landlord can't provide the proof to the tenant that they have permission to let from the mortgage lender, then walk away from that property. I would also want to be given a copy of that proof too.

Then do others tenants a favour and give the landlord details to HMRC http://www.taxevasionhotline.co.uk/ Then write to the landlords mortgage lender (details can be got from Land Registry for just £3 http://www.landregisteronline.gov.uk/lro/index.html ) providing any proof you have, that the mortgage borrower is trying to let the property.

It would be good if a people started to sue letting agents if they incur losses when a letting agent has offered a house as available to let, when the mortgage lender has given their permission. If you have contents insurance and have legal cover (sometimes called family cover) you can be given the services of a solicitor and barrister for just the cost of your excess on your contents policy, if they agree you have a case. I have been told that some credit card companies offer this too, but haven't checked that out.

MissMoneypenny

silvercar wrote: »

A lot of people facing repossession are the ones that have let out their main home because they can't afford the mortgage. Many people let their main home and rent elsewhere or work abroad.

If you look back in this thread with the references to the landlord site singingpig, you will see that many landlords don't receive permission to let too.

chucknorris

Fred1 wrote: »

I hadn't thought about this before, but from now on I will be allowing potential tenants to see my mortgage company's consent to let and the land registry title document showing that I own the property. No idea what I can do to reassure anyone that I'm solvent and the house is not at any risk of repossession though.

I'm fussy about my tenants and I prefer tenants who are fussy about their landlords - we understand each other

Tenants should always ask to see to at least proof of ownership as there have been plenty of scams stealing holding deposits from people who did not even own the property.

Ideally they should see:
Proof of ownership
Proof of financial standing (but obviously not everything)
Proof of lenders permission to let

silvercar

What happens if a landlord has received consent to let on a residential mortgage? "Consent to let" is temporary and the lender can refuse to renew the consent. If the consent to let is not renewed and the tenancy is still running the tenant can find their position vunerable. If the landlord is in financial difficulty and can't remortgage elsewhere (due to bad credit or high LTV) the tenant could find that what was a safe-ish tenancy now becomes a vunerable one.

I'm thinking of someone who can't afford their home and rents it out getting consent to let on a resi mortgage. If one tenant last 6 months, there will be less than 6 months of consent to let left.

IMO, a BTL mortgage is safer for the tenant as the permission for tenants is built into the mortgage whereas consent to let has a limited timespan. Also gaining consent to let suggests that the landlord never intended letting the property so may not have sufficient funds set aside for repairs and could be (but not always) short of cash hence the letting of the home in the first place.

franklee

silvercar wrote: »

What happens if a landlord has received consent to let on a residential mortgage? "Consent to let" is temporary and the lender can refuse to renew the consent. If the consent to let is not renewed and the tenancy is still running the tenant can find their position vunerable. If the landlord is in financial difficulty and can't remortgage elsewhere (due to bad credit or high LTV) the tenant could find that what was a safe-ish tenancy now becomes a vunerable one.

I'm thinking of someone who can't afford their home and rents it out getting consent to let on a resi mortgage. If one tenant last 6 months, there will be less than 6 months of consent to let left.

IMO, a BTL mortgage is safer for the tenant as the permission for tenants is built into the mortgage whereas consent to let has a limited timespan. Also gaining consent to let suggests that the landlord never intended letting the property so may not have sufficient funds set aside for repairs and could be (but not always) short of cash hence the letting of the home in the first place.

Being a tenant on an assured shorthold tenancy is fundamentally an insecure thing. The best the tenant can do is to check all is in order at the start of his tenancy and thus hope he will get wind of anything going wrong after that. At least the tenant will have a few months if all is still solvent at the start.

The sad fact is that repossessions especially of let properties are going up.

Also accidental landlords (those that let out the family home as they had to move) are prossibly short of cash as they will have been running two properties, the rental and the one they live in. If they've had empty periods or a previous bad tenant then they may well be struggling financially and not able to keep the rental in good repair.

All points to be weighed up by a prospective tenant as best they can with the scant information available. Certainly I'd ask why the property is for let to try and get some background.

silvercar

All points to be weighed up by a prospective tenant as best they can with the scant information available. Certainly I'd ask why the property is for let to try and get some background.

I agree.

Also accidental landlords (those that let out the family home as they had to move) are probably short of cash as they will have been running two properties, the rental and the one they live in. If they've had empty periods or a previous bad tenant then they may well be struggling financially and not able to keep the rental in good repair.

They could well be renting somewhere cheaper themselves, having fallen on bad times. This could be more of a concern.