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

silvercar

Less than 1% of mortgages are repossessed. Only a small percentage of residential mortgages are being used to let to tenants without consent. So only a very, very small number of tenants lose their home without sufficient notice as a result of letting without consent to let.

Compare that with the number of tenants who fall behind with their rent or the number of landlords who fail to carry out proper maintenance.

tbs624

silvercar wrote: »

Less than 1% of mortgages are repossessed. Only a small percentage of residential mortgages are being used to let to tenants without consent. So only a very, very small number of tenants lose their home without sufficient notice as a result of letting without consent to let.

Am familiar with the approx figures involved.:) Still pretty distressing if you are one of the Ts in that small number, I'm sure you would agree

For anyone who is interested:

In November 2009 the Council of Mortgage Lenders predicted that repossessions in 2009 would reach 48,000, a significant reduction from its original forecast of 75,000, but still a large rise on previous years.

1 The Government has introduced several measures aimed at reducing the number of repossessions and assisting households in difficulty to remain in their homes.

2 However, these measures are not directed at a key sub-set of mortgagors, i.e. those people who rent out their mortgaged property. Consequently, when these people default on their mortgage payments it is their tenants who find themselves being made homeless. It is difficult to assess the precise extent of the problem. In particular, unauthorised tenancies (those where the landlord has not sought the permission of the lender) are by their nature difficult to collect statistics on. In the third quarter of 2009 the number of buy-to-let properties taken into possession rose from 1,400 to 1,600 across the UK, equivalent to 0.14% of all buy-to-let mortgages.

3 In its consultation paper on the protection of tenants in repossession cases, the Government estimated that 2,000-3,000 tenancies (authorised and unauthorised combined) were repossessed in the financial year 2008/09, with 17,000 tenants sent notification that their lenders were seeking possession in the same year.

4 Some advice agencies have suggested that the numbers may be higher: in a joint paper, Crisis, the Citizens Advice Bureau, Shelter and the Chartered Institute of Housing estimated that there would be around 8,000 buy-to-let repossessions in 2009, while stressing that there is no way of knowing how many people live in rented properties where the lender’s permission has not been sought. The interim findings of a Crisis survey suggested that advisers helping people across the rented sector had seen a marked increase in the number of tenants seeking help because their landlords had been repossessed.

(my highlighting)Source: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2010/rp10-005.pdf

The Govt clearly think it is enough of an issue to seek to address it with the Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010

prudryden

With the latest reports from Countrywide and Paragon, I think tenants may have more to concern themselves with than whether a LL has permission from a commercial lender or not. The probabilites of being asked to leave a few weeks earlier than the normal 2 months is relatively low compared to not finding a suitable place to rent. "According to Countrywide, tenant demand is at a record high, with up to nine tenants competing for properties." My assumption is that they mean 9 tenants for each available property. Countrywide has 211 branches which counted in the survey.

chucky

silvercar wrote: »

Less than 1% of mortgages are repossessed.

it's actually much less - CML numbers are 48,000 reposessions that's 0.42% of all mortgages...

taking that a little further, it's 0.19% of all property in the UK will be reposessed.

i don't have Consent to Let - i don't need it

RedSoleShoes

tbs624 wrote: »

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

I'm not sure that being patronising is a good way to give yourself credibility.

tbs624 wrote: »

The fact is that they are deceiving their mortgage companies.

Yep, completely agree with you. Not going to lose any sleep over that though.

MissMoneypenny

LilyDeTilly wrote: »

I'm not sure that being patronising is a good way to give yourself credibility.

On the subject of credibility, tbs was correct and you were wrong and you misquoted me. Bizarrely you then told us about your friends without consent to let, that had the very problems I mentioned in the post you misquoted.

tbs624

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2672881

RedSoleShoes

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

On the subject of credibility, tbs was correct and you were wrong and you misquoted me. Bizarrely you then told us about your friends without consent to let, that had the very problems I mentioned in the post you misquoted.

I'm not sure where this "misquoting" saga has come from. Perhaps you could tell me what exactly I have misquoted and where I am "wrong"?

My friends without CTL do not have financial problems and continue to pay their mortgages every month, therefore they do not fit into your generalisation.

Obviously you have had a bad experience so I would expect some bitterness but as many others have said, I have come across more bad tenants than bad landlords.

MissMoneypenny

LilyDeTilly wrote: »

I'm not sure where this "misquoting" saga has come from. Perhaps you could tell me what exactly I have misquoted and where I am "wrong"?

My friends without CTL do not have financial problems and continue to pay their mortgages every month, therefore they do not fit into your generalisation.

Obviously you have had a bad experience so I would expect some bitterness but as many others have said, I have come across more bad tenants than bad landlords.

Re read post 325 again: your misquoting is explained there.

RedSoleShoes

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Re read post 325 again: your misquoting is explained there.

Not really. The words in your post are quoted in my post therefore no misquoting has occured

Or perhaps you have realised that it is you who has got it wrong and that is why you cannot explain......