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

franklee

silvercar wrote: »

Which is all the notice you would have got if the landlord had the correct mortgage!

The tenant is much better off if the tenancy is binding.

If the tenancy is binding on the landlord's lender then the tenant would at least be served two months notice under Section 8, ground 2: that the mortgagee is claiming possession. After that would come the S8 court hearing (lets say that's a two month wait), then the possession order is likely to give the tenant another two weeks. So the tenant gets a proper two months notice after which they can leave and then if they don't leave there is more time till the S8 court hearing. It really wouldn't be possible to get a tenant out in 56 days under S8 if the tenancy was binding on the lender.

Where the tenancy isn't binding on the lender even the tenant who knows there may be a repossession faces a lot of uncertainty. As southwold_gal was still in the fixed term she was not able to give her own notice to leave. The letter to the occupiers with news of the possession wasn't enough for the tenant to act on as if the landlord had been able to fend off the repossession in court (e.g. by paying off enough of the arrears) then southwold_gal would still have been liable for rent till the end of the fixed term. That is a world away from getting a proper two months notice, knowing well in advance exactly when the liability to pay rent will be ending and with the safety net of the delay for a S8 court hearing if the tenant can't find somewhere else in time.

Also if the tenancy isn't binding it goes to show the tenant should attend the repossession court hearing and ask for more time, but they cannot be sure beforehand if they will be granted as long as the 56 days so the tenant faces uncertainty of what's happening till then. Strictly speaking without a binding tenancy the judge can ignore the tenant as the tenant has no rights and so just has to hope a judge will be sympathetic.

franklee

southwold_gal wrote: »

Wish we had seen this thread a few months ago, we signed a 12 month tenancy in June, not even 2 months into that we get a letter addressed to the occupiers telling us the house is being repossessed. Immediately called the mortgage companies solicitors who couldnt tell us anything much because of data protection, but did confirm the landlord didnt have permission from the mortgage company to let the house, because of this we as tenants have no rights at all, court hearing was last week, we attended and the judge granted us 56 days to vacate the property much against the mortgage companies wishes. Our landlord has left the country, our deposit has gone up in flames and we are now trying to find somewhere to go before the 56 days are up

Sorry to hear this happened to you. You would have been much better off if the tenancy was binding on the landlord's lender as the post above shows. It is something worth checking for.

You can in theory sue your landlord for breach of the tenancy agreement but if he is abroad and broke it's probably not worth it.

MissMoneypenny

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote: »

Did you put a little note in your diary for the 1st of September? :rotfl:

I don't have to do that. Sadly there is nearly always some thread running on here or on the mortgages section, about not having the mortgage lenders Consent to Let.

MissMoneypenny

silvercar wrote: »

If the landlord got repossessed and if the tenants got evicted as a direct result and through no fault of their own, then they could sue the landlord for breaching the terms of the tenancy.

If the landlord has any money left.

Much better for tenants to check they have a legal landlord who has received Consent to Let from their mortgage lender or has a Buy to Let mortgage.

clutton_2

A report in teh NLA magazine this month says that the Council of Mortgage Lenders reports far less B2L mortgage arrears in the second quarter of 2009.

Arrears have improved significantly in BTL mortgages. 2.49% of of all buy to let mortgages were in arrears - this is down from 3.06% in the previous quarter.

Lenders are now making extensive use of receivers to manage arrears in the BTL sector rather than to take possession - often because there are paying tenants in the property.

C learly the BTL mortgage sector is responding to NLA and government pressure to prevent evicitions of tenants who have done nothing wrong


So in spite of a lot of "landlord-bashing" on here - there is actually only a very small number of landlords who get into arrears and whose actions cause tenants to have to move on when they would rather stay put

socrates

I ignore all the LL bashing now - my tenants are happy I provide them with decent quality housing when others will not.

Most of the people who bash LL's on here are bitter and twisted - mostly because they have never got on the property ladder (snake) - they keep missing the boat probably because they read too many forums telling them its the wrong time to buy.

As I have said before looking at LR DOES NOT AND WILL NOT tell you if your LL has consent to let.

There is no law/legislation in place and there are far more bad tenants than bad LL's.

The debate will roll on and on and all the haters will still be in the same situation.

southwold_gal

barnaby-bear wrote: »

True on a periodic but with consent to let the lender would have honoured the fixed term - these people had *only just* moved in :eek:

They got 2 months from the judge by luck - really the court should have not given them that and it was not a given.

This is quite true we got very lucky that the judge wasnt impressed with how the Mortgage Company behaved on the day of the hearing, this is the only reason we got the full 56 days. The Judge asked for a current value on the house and after hearing that it was higher than the amount owed he decided that giving us 56 days wouldnt do any harm to the Mortgage Company recouping their money. Shelter were amazing they helped us every step of the way, I can't recommend them highly enough for anyone with housing issues. Steep learning curve and an expensive one for us as we now know the deposit wasnt protected so we have lost that as well and because the landlord is living outside the UK there is little we can do. For us now we are focusing on the future and cant wait to get out of this house having found a fantastic and very understanding Landlord who has gone out of his way to help us out of this situation.

MissMoneypenny

socrates wrote: »

As I have said before looking at LR DOES NOT AND WILL NOT tell you if your LL has consent to let.

Perhaps you need to read more of this thread to find the answer to that?

socrates

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Perhaps you need to read more of this thread to find the answer to that?

I do not need to read anything I KNOW.

Looking at LR Records DO NOT tell you if a LL has consent to let from his lender or not. FACT!

m_13

There is an added complication if the property is leasehold. Many leaseholders do not allow properties to be rented out without their permission and knowledge (and make a charge for the pleasure).

In our block of flats it's considered sub-letting to rent out your flat and there is a long list of rules attached to allowing somebody else to live in a flat owned by you and for which you are the leaseholder. There are specific restrictions on the issuing of keys and ensuring terms relating to the headlease (no pets, noise etc) are incuded in any tenancy agreement.

it's all a complex business which can in the case of one flat in our block led to the police being called and the leaseholder being prosecuted for the actions of his tenant.

So, all may appear correct at the land registry but all the relevant permissions not be in place or all may appear to be dodgy but in fact be fine!