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

MissMoneypenny

LilyDeTilly wrote: »

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......

tbs did put it in different colours for you in that post, to make it easy for you to understand. Can you really still not understand it? If not, I'll come back later tonight and make it even easier for you.

leitmotif

If your landlord does not have permission to let, does that invalidate the rental contract?

silvercar

leitmotif wrote: »

If your landlord does not have permission to let, does that invalidate the rental contract?

NO, its still a contract between tenant and landlord. It means that in the rare cases where a landlord's property is repossessed with a tenant in situ, the lender is not automatically obliged to honour the tenancy for its full length.

tbs624

leitmotif - if you want to know more about what happens then you may like to have a look at Shelter's website

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

It's interesting this one because, as we know, a T failing to be truthful on their tenancy application

leitmotif

Picture the following scenario:

1) You're renting a property.
2) You read this forum and find out that not all landlords have permission to let from their lender.
3) You contact your managing agent and ask whether the landlord has said permission.
4) The agent replies that it is certain that the landlord does have said permission.
5) The landlord hasn't paid his/her mortgage for a year, and is taken to court by the lender.
6) At the court case it transpires that the landlord did not have said permission.
7) A repossession order is granted but deferred on the grounds that a repayment scheme is agreed at the court.
8) If the repossession order had not been deferred, you could have lost everything to the bailiffs.

Now, this scenario will hopefully be a thing of the past once the new Mortgage Repossessions Protection of Tenants Etc. Act 2010 comes into full force (1st October this year). However, this didn't apply at the time. Are there any grounds for you to sue the landlord for the distress caused?

nembot

silvercar wrote: »

NO, its still a contract between tenant and landlord. It means that in the rare cases where a landlord's property is repossessed with a tenant in situ, the lender is not automatically obliged to honour the tenancy for its full length.

Absolutely spot on, with a BTL mortgage in place the lender "should" honour the AST and if on a periodic agreement they must give two months notice. You cannot be evicted within the first six months of tenancy (although, non payment, damage to property could be used for a section eight notice - 14 days).

With no BTL mortgage in place, you have no rights and can be given two weeks to vacate the property. This would be the most likely outcome, although depending on the local market - it's certainly feasible for the lender to appoint a receiver to act as the landlord.

tbs624

Well done Miss Moneypenny. The message is being heard

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=36392525&postcount=5

MissMoneypenny

tbs624 wrote: »

Well done Miss Moneypenny. The message is being heard

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=36392525&postcount=5

:TIt's not just me though, lots of people (including yourself) have posted, to get this message out. So it's "well done" to everyone.

ocalllo

hope you don't mind me butting in on the end here but i have a few queries from the landlord side......

we have been trying to sell since Feb. Have had hse for 5 yrs, only this mth came off our high fixed rate and hse has not increased in value at all. We have never missed a payment and have some savings in the bank (not mortgage lenders bank).

We are emigrating to OZ asap. Have a job lined up and cannot sell hse. We have no choice now but to look at renting it out - REALLY don't want to as do not have anyone to look after property for us.
The rent will not cover the mortgage so we cannot afford to loose more and use an agent.

My question - in what circumstances can your lender refuse 'consent to let'. also is there a time limit on this (as we won't be back).
Can you sell your hse with a sitting tenent?

(if we had had a crystal ball we would have rented for the last 5yrs and saved some money......feel like the hse is a chain around our neck now)

Brb

Ocallo I would suggest you start your own thread to get detailed advice as consent to let (whilst important it is not your only concern). For example I would be worried that if you have no-one to manage the property how you would arrange the yearly gas safe check (legal requirement) from Australia ? There are also tax implications. Renting out isn't as easy as you would think. If a tenant wasn't to pay their rent for example you couldn't simply boot them out, you would need to get a possession order from the courts and then baliffs. How would you arrange repair work ? there are lots of things to consider. You do need your own thread