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

MissMoneypenny

LilyDeTilly wrote: »

From a tenant's point of view, you can still get kicked out if the landlord has CTL or BTL and doesn't pay the mortgage so unless you ask for proof every month that the mortgage is up to date, seeing proof of CTL is not going to do you any good.

At least with a BTL or in date consent to let, the lender has given the mortgage borrower permission to rent the property and will keep to the terms of the contract.

Some people don't ask for consent to let as they know they will get refused consent by their lender as they are in negative equity/have very little equity/they don't have the money to pay any fees the lender wants/have made a fraudulant application for the mortgage. In other words, they have financial problems.

MissMoneypenny

Lezman wrote: »

Hey all,

I have a slightly different skew on this subject. I own a flat, the flat above is rented out and I have a nightmare with the tenant who lives in it. Problem is, I can't find out the landlords address to complain as once I went on the Land Registry and it was the address of the let flat.

Now, I'm fed up with the situation and feel the only course of action is to confirm whether he has consent to let and report the landlord, hoping by proxy it will get the tennant out.

How can I do this with just land registry information?

Many thanks

Not sure how an individaul who is not connected to the property can do it. The tenant is allowed by law, to have their landlords address.

prudryden

Whether the bank cares if a client has consent to let or not depends on that customer's relationship to the bank and how much the bank values that particular customer's business. That business customer may be worth a lot of income to the bank and a little thing like a normal term in a contract of consent to let is really not important to them. So if you believe your landlord doesn't have consent to let, then you should really find another place to rent for your own safety.

MissMoneypenny

prudryden wrote: »

Whether the bank cares if a client has consent to let or not depends on that customer's relationship to the bank and how much the bank values that particular customer's business.

I have thanked your post prudryden but just wanted to add that lenders do care if they have been asked for consent to let. Many lenders are now imposing a % interest rate rise if they find out that someone has been renting out a property without their permission. The risk of not paying the mortgage on a property the borrower doesn't live in, is higher than a property the borrower does live in. Lenders have the right to charge the borrower for the higher risk they are taking.

I agree that if you have any doubts about whether the person has consent to let, that you should be safe and rent elsewhere. If someone is prepared to lie about somthing as big as that, then what else are they going to lie about to the tenant/ fail to keep to the law. You can also look on the land registry site (link on first post) to see who their mortgage lender is and report them to their lender to save other prospective tenants.

silvercar

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Not sure how an individaul who is not connected to the property can do it. The tenant is allowed by law, to have their landlords address.

Easily done. Download the deeds from land registry for £4. That will give you the name of the lender, so write to them and tell them that property address is being rented out.

wangtao

the landlord could have consent to let and notified the lender of his new address. I have never yet relied on anyone else to pay my bills, and never will. If they seriously defaulted on the rent .

RedSoleShoes

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

At least with a BTL or in date consent to let, the lender has given the mortgage borrower permission to rent the property and will keep to the terms of the contract.

BTL or CTL proof does not provide any guarantee that the owner will continue to be making mortgage payments every month, therefore tenant can still get evicted eventually.

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Some people don't ask for consent to let as they know they will get refused..... In other words, they have financial problems.

A massive generalisation, unless you have some evidence to back up your comment?

tbs624

LilyDeTilly wrote: »

BTL or CTL proof does not provide any guarantee that the owner will continue to be making mortgage payments every month, therefore tenant can still get evicted eventually.

but the key thing is that the T will at least have a 2 month minimum notice period.

RedSoleShoes

tbs624 wrote: »

but the key thing is that the T will at least have a 2 month minimum notice period.

I am not disputing that at all. However this thread seems to be based on promoting the message that if a landlord does not have BTL or CTL then the tenant will get kicked out, end of. When that is not necessarily the case. MissMoneypenny has stated that anyone without permission must have financial problems which is a ridiculous claim.

I am a landlord with CTL. I have two friends who are landlords without BTL or CTL and have been this way for 2 years one of them and about 18 months the other. They have never defaulted on their mortgage payments and never had a tenant evicted. They do not have financial problems but not quite enough equity in their properties to get permission. One had to move for job relocation and the other just decided to move back home to get some savings so they could change their mortgage.

Regardless of this being contractually wrong, they do prove that being a landlord without permission to let does not mean that tenant eviction is around the corner!

tbs624

LilyDeTilly wrote: »

I am not disputing that at all. However this thread seems to be based on promoting the message that if a landlord does not have BTL or CTL then the tenant will get kicked out, end of. When that is not necessarily the case. MissMoneypenny has stated that anyone without permission must have financial problems which is a ridiculous claim.

I suggest you read Miss M's post again - I have highlighted the relevant word (red) to help you

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Some people don't ask for consent to let as they know they will get refused consent by their lender as they are in negative equity/have very little equity/they don't have the money to pay any fees the lender wants/have made a fraudulant application for the mortgage. In other words, they have financial problems.

Doesn't look as ridiculous as you do, for misquoting her.

LilyDeTilly wrote: »

I am a landlord with CTL.

That's good

LilyDeTilly wrote: »

II have two friends who are landlords without BTL or CTL and have been this way for 2 years one of them and about 18 months the other. They have never defaulted on their mortgage payments and never had a tenant evicted. They do not have financial problems but not quite enough equity in their properties to get permission.

Now see the blue highlighted bit. Looks like you're saying the same thing?

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Regardless of this being contractually wrong, they do prove that being a landlord without permission to let does not mean that tenant eviction is around the corner!

How so? The fact that they have yet to default does not mean that they *won't* at some point in the future and , as already stated, any T in situ is then placed in an appalling situation with very little notice. Do your mates fly under the radar on the rest of their LL obligations? HMRC aware?

The fact is that they are deceiving their mortgage companies.