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

TJ27

meredeterre wrote: »

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.

The reason I know is because in some cases I know them personally and I trust them. I am also a council housing official, who has access to some methods possibly not available to the likes of you

As a tenant you are probably very wise to be suspicious. You will often find that your suspicions are unfounded though. Not always of course!

franklee

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 Land reg details are very often out of date and sometimes unreliable.

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.

Oddly enough I fell for that one. I asked about permission to let and was told the landlord didn't have a mortgage, and I took that at his word. Soon after I moved in the letters from the lender arrived (could tell by the writing on the outside and visible though the envelope window that showed this was the lender that was shown at the land registry).

Turned out he did have a whopping big mortgage and not much equity. Next time I won't fall for that again.

These landlords you speak of could easily write to the land reg to get it updated or show the tenant the letter(s) from the lender listed at the land reg from when the loan was paid off.

I am sick to death of so many excuses about this when the roof over a tenant's head is at stake. If a landlord can't be bothered to collect and show the proof needed then that isn't a sign of a good landlord anyway in my book as it shows he doens't much care about the tenant.

silvercar

Just remember its a landlord not paying the mortgage that puts a tenant at risk of repossession; if a tenant is paying the rent in full when due, there is really no excuse for a landlord falling behind with mortgage payments.

franklee

silvercar wrote: »

Just remember its a landlord not paying the mortgage that puts a tenant at risk of repossession; if a tenant is paying the rent in full when due, there is really no excuse for a landlord falling behind with mortgage payments.

I've read countless accounts both in this forum and elsewhere of repossession where the tenant was paying the rent.

I have in this thread linked to cases where the property was let again after possession proceedings had been started. The one from Tessa where the property had been let again after the possession order had been granted.

In the boom times lenders doubtless turned a blind eye. Things have now changed and lenders have tightened up their rules. The case where the lender on finding out the property had been let increased the interest rate charged. Or the case where the lender wrote telling the landlord to increase the equity he had in the property to meet their letting rules, thus asking for a lump sum of 30K to be paid off.

The question I have is why not get consent? I would not bet on getting away with breaking the mortgage terms without some financial penalty (like being put on to the lenders BTL interest rate and having enough equity to let) which the landlords who cheat claim they cannot afford as this is why they cheated in the first place. These landlords should be avoided as to run a successful let the landlord does need enough spare cash and these don't have that regardless of anything the lender may or may not do.

newbienewbison

I say power to the people! Can we never just do a private deal anymore without having to ask permission from the banks, Gordon and Alistair. What ever happend to two sheep for a cow?

silvercar

The question I have is why not get consent?

You have answered your own question, because people don't want to increase their mortgage payments. Landlords are more likely to be able to pay the mortgage if the payments are lower, thus repo is more likely.

We are agreeing - I think - if a tenant is paying the rent, then a landlord has no excuse in not paying the mortgage. Any landlord who can't afford the mortgage when the tenant is paying the rent, shouldn't be letting the property.

The time to inquire about consent to let is before taking the tenancy. Once in the property it is too late for a tenant to do anything. Firstly they are bound by the contract (even if the landlord is breaching a mortgage agreement as that is third party and could be corrected). Secondly, making contact with the lender could increase the likelihood of eviction.

franklee

silvercar wrote: »

You have answered your own question, because people don't want to increase their mortgage payments. Landlords are more likely to be able to pay the mortgage if the payments are lower, thus repo is more likely.

We are agreeing - I think - if a tenant is paying the rent, then a landlord has no excuse in not paying the mortgage. Any landlord who can't afford the mortgage when the tenant is paying the rent, shouldn't be letting the property.

The time to inquire about consent to let is before taking the tenancy. Once in the property it is too late for a tenant to do anything. Firstly they are bound by the contract (even if the landlord is breaching a mortgage agreement as that is third party and could be corrected). Secondly, making contact with the lender could increase the likelihood of eviction.

I did enquire before taking the tenancy but I was lied to in being told there was no mortgage. It was once I'd moved in that I caught on when the letters arrived.

This forum is littered with cases where an OP does not want to sell at below peak value and yet wants to move so lets out the old home and buys another to live in. Often these landlords post they cannot afford the extra fees if they notify their lenders as the rent only just covers the mortgage. Thing is they forget to budget for periods when the property is empty(so they have two sets of bills to pay) or for repairs like the boiler breaking down.

They cannot afford to let. If they notified their lender they know full well the lender would tell them they cannot afford to let but they go ahead anyway. These are the landlords a tenant should avoid, they may well have fallen into arrears even before the tenant moved in especially now the market is awash with rentals so the property may have been empty for a few months already so finances are already stretched.

MissMoneypenny

Bumping this up so renters know how important it is to check a landlord has received Consent to Let from their mortgage lenders.

MissMoneypenny

Renters - don't forget to check that a landlord has asked permission from their mortgage lender, to rent the property.

franklee

Reminder of this useful guide:

Repossession by a landlord's lender.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/eviction/repossession_by_a_landlords_lender


Extract:

Is my tenancy binding on the landlord's lender?

In certain circumstances, your tenancy may be binding on the landlord's lender. This means the lender will become your landlord after the repossession and will need to apply for a separate court order if they want to evict you. Most tenancies are not binding on the lender, but there are exceptions. You may have a binding tenancy if any of the following situations apply:

• Your landlord had a buy-to-let mortgage.
• The lender gave permission for the landlord to grant the tenancy.
• You were already living in the property at the time the mortgage was granted (eg as a sitting tenant or when the landlord took out a second mortgage). If you are unsure about when the landlord's mortgage started, ask your landlord, or get advice to find out whether the tenancy is binding. An adviser may be able to confirm this via the court, the lender, and/or the Land Registry.
• The landlord's lender has recognised the tenancy in some way (eg by asking you to pay rent direct to them or by accepting rent from you). Most lenders will avoid doing this or will call the payment something other than 'rent'.