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

meredeterre

Just spotted this thread and wanted to bump it to urge people to check up on their potential landlords. We got stung year before last by a landlord who didn't have permission to let and then didn't pay the mortgage for the first 7 months of our tenancy. The first we heard was when the repossession court notice arrived :sad:. I cannot begin the describe the sheer hell we went through, despite the repossession being halted, eventually. TBH we've still not recovered financially or emotionally nearly 2 years down the line.

Those of you thinking it's a waste of money or hassle getting some proof then I wish you the best of luck and hope your lack of foresight doesn't come back to haunt you.

Those of you renting houses without the proper permissions - I have no words that I can print here :mad:

clairet707

How long does it take to change the detials on the land registry thingy..

Weve just moved into a house and the landlord moved out recently (we are getting bank statements etc for her) have checked the land registry and its still showing as her living here...

Not sure of exact date she moved out

N79

clairet707 wrote: »

How long does it take to change the detials on the land registry thingy..

Weve just moved into a house and the landlord moved out recently (we are getting bank statements etc for her) have checked the land registry and its still showing as her living here...

Not sure of exact date she moved out

It probably wont change if there is still a residential mortgage on the property. Of course, this does not mean that there is any problem - hence why for all the good advice in this thread there really is no way for a T to confirm that LL has permission to let.

silvercar

clairet707 wrote: »

How long does it take to change the detials on the land registry thingy..

Weve just moved into a house and the landlord moved out recently (we are getting bank statements etc for her) have checked the land registry and its still showing as her living here...

Not sure of exact date she moved out

If there is no mortgage or if the landlord obtained consent to let on an existing mortgage the land registry file won't change.

franklee

N79 wrote: »

It probably wont change if there is still a residential mortgage on the property. Of course, this does not mean that there is any problem - hence why for all the good advice in this thread there really is no way for a T to confirm that LL has permission to let.

Course there is a way to confirm in this case, the tenant can ask the landlord for written proof. If that isn't available then the tenant can draw their own conclusions.

bobby-boy_2

Hi Franklee
The tenant can draw their own WRONG conclusion when the landlord says no to the request for proof of permission to let.
Just because I don't show you my driving license does not mean I don't have one for example.

Never jump to conclusions or make assumptions on something you have not seen.

TJ27

bobby-boy wrote: »

The tenant can draw their own WRONG conclusion when the landlord says no to the request for proof of permission to let.

That's very true and of course it's a risk that the landlord can take if he so wishes.

The tenant may well draw the wrong conclusion and then simply move on to the next available property. It's no biggie as far as the tenant is concerned. Could mean a void for the LL though.

I don't think anybody is against the principle of permission to let. It's proving it that's the difficult bit.

meredeterre

bobby-boy wrote: »

Hi Franklee
The tenant can draw their own WRONG conclusion when the landlord says no to the request for proof of permission to let.

...and your point is...? I'd rather be wrong than risk taking out an invalid tenancy again and end up homeless.

Just because I don't show you my driving license does not mean I don't have one for example.

Never jump to conclusions or make assumptions on something you have not seen.

I bet you wouldn't say that to the police if they asked to see a copy of your driving license!

If you have the proper permission to let then why not supply the information? I really fail to see why an honest person wouldn't want to.

TJ27

[QUOTE=meredeterre;20966221
If you have the proper permission to let then why not supply the information? I really fail to see why an honest person wouldn't want to.[/QUOTE]

Well I agree but it's often the practicalities of supplying the proof that's a problem. For example, I see countless landlords who I know own their houses outright, yet the land reg details say there is a mortgage. Land reg details are very often out of date and sometimes unreliable.

It's very easy for a tenant to suspect that a LL doesn't have permission to let when in fact he does have permission, or doesn't even have a mortgage.

Still, from a tenants point of view it's better to be safe than sorry I suppose. So I'm broadly on your side.

meredeterre

TJ27 wrote: »

Well I agree but it's often the practicalities of supplying the proof that's a problem. For example, I see countless landlords who I know own their houses outright, yet the land reg details say there is a mortgage. Land reg details are very often out of date and sometimes unreliable.

If you 'know' they own the properties outright, then presumably they have proved this to you in another way?

I'm afraid I am highly suspicious these days and wouldn't take anyone at their word.