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

Shakethedisease

You may want to reaquaint yourself with more recent developments in insurance policies for landlords. If a tenant burns the property down, you won't be covered properly, if at all. ( bolding the articles' not mine ). Insurance companies very much 'care'.

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/Insurance/residential_landlords'_insurance.htm

It is important to realise that normal household insurance policies are not suitable for letting. You need a policy which is specifically designed for letting and one which covers several additional risks.
If you are letting your property your mortgage company will want to know about it and will insist on certain conditions, such as appropriate lettings policies.
Don't forget, it's easy to obtain insurance cover by not disclosing all the material facts (such as the fact that you are letting the property) but, in effect, you are not insured. If anything happens the insurance company will investigate and will almost certainly refuse to pay out.

franklee

Welshwoofs wrote: »

You have a serious problem and Christ knows why MSE saw fit to sticky your horrendous bile. The type of landlords you advocate ruining are often just normal people who had to move and were unable to sell and also didn't have the funds to come up with the draconian demands some lendersmimpose when one asks for permission to let.

I am one of your 'low lifes' and the reason is my lender who simply won't give permission to let. I also couldn't sell...my house was in an area with 70% unemployment and houses were not moving at a time I HAD to move. My choice was to leave the place empty or let it out. I let it out....for well under Market rate and well under the mortgage repayments just to ensure it wasn't empty. My tenants are happy; they have a newly returned house for cheaper than anything else around. There are annual safety checks, issues are fixed straight away and yes, it is declared to the tax man. My tenants are in no danger of eviction for me non-paying the mortgage because I can afford it without their payments but I just didn't have the savings to swap to a BTL.

So it saddens me when people like you, out of some warped malevolence, encourage people who are probably having no issues with their tenancy in many cases, to 'shop' and attempt to financially ruin their landlord....and in so doing seal their own fate.

Warped. Really warped

It's stickied because if a landlord without consent to let got repossessed it caused problems for the tenants. We've seen many examples of the stress, uncertainty and possibly the need to move with little notice this causes, e.g. some links after a very brief search:

Tenant - just received repossession letter HELP!
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/32041995#Comment_32041995

Need help to be proactive, landlord in mortgage arrears
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/29996839#Comment_29996839

Landlords Mortgage gone into default
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/30339351#Comment_30339351

Tenant in a flat about to be repossessed?!
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2218583

Agents letting property subject to a re-possession order
http://landlordlaw.blogspot.com/2008/05/agents-letting-property-subject-to-re.html

Estimated 325,000 households in the UK where the landlord doesn't have consent to let.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=29101755&postcount=267

Repossession of a rented flat
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?2506-L-s-mortgagee-to-repossess-let-property-effect-on-T&p=95981#post95981

Tenant recently move in to be repossessed in one week.
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?2506-L-s-mortgagee-to-repossess-let-property-effect-on-T&p=96382#post96382

Landlady was repossessed, can the agency keep any of our deposit?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/18401557#Comment_18401557

Fortunately the law has recently been changed to allow tenants notice when the landlord is repossessed even without consent to let, but it's unclear exactly when or if that applies if the repossession is underway before the tenancy started so there is still a need for a tenant to check all is OK at the start of the tenancy.

A landlord can of course financially reference a tenant but the tenant can't realistically reference the landlord by asking for details of their financial solvency, therefore a tenant does not know how robust a landlord's fiances are. Asking for consent to let is one thing a tenant can easily do so as to cut down the risk of problems but then it seems landlords can sometimes be reluctant to answer even that.

I don't think the lender charging more for a let is unreasonable as letting does expose the lender to more risk, especially if it's an amateur landlord who has a long void, or is running at a loss month on month or who gets a tenant who, doesn't pay rent. By the time the next decent tenant arrives the landlord may be in financial difficulties the new tenant does not know about.

Such an accidental landlord if he is refused consent to let can improve terms with the lender by putting in more equity, or he could shop about for a deal elsewhere. If a landlord genuinely can't afford a few hundred in fees or an extra percent or so on the mortgage that this would cost then I'd be extremely concerned that they don't have enough contingency to let out in the first place. If the problem is significant negative equity then the potential landlord is stuck, but then the lender is at greater risk especially if the let is being run with a loss month on month as well. That isn't what the lender signed up for when they gave a residential mortgage and it isn't a situation I'd like to walk into as the next tenant so it seems reasonable to me, especially on a money saving site, that these risks are explained to the consumer that is the tenant.

mizzbiz

I don't agree with you at all on this. A landlord being repo'd due to financial problems and people with low LTV letting out their empty properties are two different ball games. Those landlords with BTL mortgages can still get into financial difficulties and the situation becomes the same. Why does formal consent from the lender change the financial situation for the landlord? All it does is give slightly, ever so slightly, more protection to the renter.

As for the NRAM comment, no there is no 125% mortgage. It's around 85% and is not with NRAM due to risk, as far as I know. It depends on their criteria for risky I suppose. My pal has always paid her mortgage on time and has overpaid in the three years she has had it.

She was unlucky in that she didn't understand the macro-economics of house buying. She was just a graduate who was told by everyone to buy a flat whilst she still could. Yes, she probably could sell a flat that she has spent thousands renovating for well below what she paid - but losing thousands upon thousands of pounds when she can just keep is not that appealing a prospect. She moved because having a husband and a baby in a top floor, teeny one-bed flat is not viable. How did she know how the market would go and that she wouldn't be able to sell it when she had a family? Besides, she can afford the mortgage but would prefer to rent it out so that she has that spare money rather than paying two mortgages.

I think you have a narrow, narrow view of the circumstances behind the market and people's lives at the moment. Her exposure is only large because she has to cover two mortgages. If she could rent it out then actually, the risk would be considerably lower.

I think you make a lot of assumptions and also, that by raising this issue in a sticky, you are excluding many would be good landlords from the market just because of your biased, militant viewpoint. Advocating grassing up landlords who don't have permission (who cares as long as the mortgage is paid!!) is really low in my opinion. You can push someone into a situation where they do end up in financial dire straits when otherwise this would not be the case.

And if your landlords house is repossessed, why don't you just move????? As a renter, there are plenty more fish in the sea. In fact, there would be more fish in the sea, and more competition, if we lived and let live.

mizzbiz

Welshwoofs wrote: »

You have a serious problem and Christ knows why MSE saw fit to sticky your horrendous bile. The type of landlords you advocate ruining are often just normal people who had to move and were unable to sell and also didn't have the funds to come up with the draconian demands some lendersmimpose when one asks for permission to let.

I am one of your 'low lifes' and the reason is my lender who simply won't give permission to let. I also couldn't sell...my house was in an area with 70% unemployment and houses were not moving at a time I HAD to move. My choice was to leave the place empty or let it out. I let it out....for well under Market rate and well under the mortgage repayments just to ensure it wasn't empty. My tenants are happy; they have a newly returned house for cheaper than anything else around. There are annual safety checks, issues are fixed straight away and yes, it is declared to the tax man. My tenants are in no danger of eviction for me non-paying the mortgage because I can afford it without their payments but I just didn't have the savings to swap to a BTL.

So it saddens me when people like you, out of some warped malevolence, encourage people who are probably having no issues with their tenancy in many cases, to 'shop' and attempt to financially ruin their landlord....and in so doing seal their own fate.

Warped. Really warped

Spot on. Would thank you many times over if I could.

prudryden

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You may want to reaquaint yourself with more recent developments in insurance policies for landlords. If a tenant burns the property down, you won't be covered properly, if at all. ( bolding the articles' not mine ). Insurance companies very much 'care'.

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/Insurance/residential_landlords'_insurance.htm

I think you misunderstand what the quote is actually saying. It is easy to do. It talks about normal household insurance (which is inappropriate) versus landlords rental insurance. As long as the insurance company knows that you are renting and have the proper landlord insurance, then you are covered irrespective of letting permission. It doesn't affect the actuarial risks on the property. Getting permission is a contractual requirement with the lender i.e. a private civil matter that doesn't include the insurance company.
Now, I'm not saying that one shouldn't get permission. On the contrary, they should for their own piece of mind and for the tenants. But, I can assure you it doesn't affect your insurance if you don't.

new_home_owner_3

Welshwoofs wrote: »

You have a serious problem and Christ knows why MSE saw fit to sticky your horrendous bile. The type of landlords you advocate ruining are often just normal people who had to move and were unable to sell and also didn't have the funds to come up with the draconian demands some lendersmimpose when one asks for permission to let.

I am one of your 'low lifes' and the reason is my lender who simply won't give permission to let. I also couldn't sell...my house was in an area with 70% unemployment and houses were not moving at a time I HAD to move. My choice was to leave the place empty or let it out. I let it out....for well under Market rate and well under the mortgage repayments just to ensure it wasn't empty. My tenants are happy; they have a newly returned house for cheaper than anything else around. There are annual safety checks, issues are fixed straight away and yes, it is declared to the tax man. My tenants are in no danger of eviction for me non-paying the mortgage because I can afford it without their payments but I just didn't have the savings to swap to a BTL.

So it saddens me when people like you, out of some warped malevolence, encourage people who are probably having no issues with their tenancy in many cases, to 'shop' and attempt to financially ruin their landlord....and in so doing seal their own fate.

Warped. Really warped

agree totally, the only reason miss moneypenny keeps on going on about this is because shes a estate agent.

if you have all the right insurances and gas certificates you are fully covered.
like someone said before whether you have a btl mortgage or a residential mortgage it makes no difference if your landlord doesnt pay the mortgage the house will still get reposessed.

i have asked miss moneypenny before to give any type of previous case of a mortgage company reposessing a house for a landlord not getting consent and i have searched high and low across the intenet and i have never found any story or article of a landlord solely having their home reposessed for not getting consent.

The issue with miss moneypenny is she believes if people are wise enough not to approach the banks to get consnent to let, as they know the banks will rip them off with massive charges, she thinks they wont use a agent to let, hence it will hit her directly in the pocket.

MissMoneypenny

Welshwoofs wrote: »

You have a serious problem and Christ knows why MSE saw fit to sticky your horrendous bile. The type of landlords you advocate ruining are often just normal people who had to move and were unable to sell and also didn't have the funds to come up with the draconian demands some lendersmimpose when one asks for permission to let.

I am one of your 'low lifes' and the reason is my lender who simply won't give permission to let. I also couldn't sell...my house was in an area with 70% unemployment and houses were not moving at a time I HAD to move. My choice was to leave the place empty or let it out. I let it out....for well under Market rate and well under the mortgage repayments just to ensure it wasn't empty. My tenants are happy; they have a newly returned house for cheaper than anything else around. There are annual safety checks, issues are fixed straight away and yes, it is declared to the tax man. My tenants are in no danger of eviction for me non-paying the mortgage because I can afford it without their payments but I just didn't have the savings to swap to a BTL.

So it saddens me when people like you, out of some warped malevolence, encourage people who are probably having no issues with their tenancy in many cases, to 'shop' and attempt to financially ruin their landlord....and in so doing seal their own fate.

Warped. Really warped

Thank you for confirming to the site that there are still illegal landlords around (and those who thanked you?) who don't have Consent to Let from their mortgage lender. Tenants should still protect themselves by checking that the prospective landlord has been given Consent to Let from his mortgage lender.

I started this thread because of the numbers of posts on this site from those tenants who found the house they rented was repossessed. They posted that even though they had paid their rent, they found they had few rights as their landlord didn't have Consent to Let from his mortgage Lender. It was made into a sticky as these types of threads just kept coming. Welshwoofs, this is a consumer money saving site.

Thankfully there are decent people like Martin, his staff, other site owners and posters on here and other Internet sites, who are helping people protect themselves, by warning tenants.

Even the credit agencies are now offering a service to mortgage lenders, where they can check to see whose credit file is listed at properties, to see if the residential mortgage owner has let a property without the consent of their mortgage lender.

MissMoneypenny

prudryden wrote: »

Insurance companies don't care if you have asked the lender.

Until a claim is made.

prudryden

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Until a claim is made.

The landlords insurance contract is a valid contract. If the landlords insurance contract would say dependent on getting permission, then there may be a case (possibly an unfair term), but I have not seen one that does (but there could be some), as it doesn't have any effect on the actuarial risks for the insurance company. It would be hard for them not to honour the contract based on something that another commercial company believes it should have for whatever reason. If that was the case, then they wouldn't honour their contracts for myriads of reasons. Mind you - insurance companies do like the Act of God scenario.

MissMoneypenny

new_home_owner wrote: »

agree totally, the only reason miss moneypenny keeps on going on about this is because shes a estate agent.

I'm not an EA. Are you saying that estate agents are asking landlords for proof of their Consent to Let before they let tenants in? Unfortunately that isn't true off all estate agents......yet.

new_home_owner wrote: »

if you have all the right insurances and gas certificates you are fully covered.

If you practice deception on your insurance application, your insurance is invalid. Failure to disclose information (especially something as important as not having permission to let the property) is also deception. Insurers may not question a policy when you pay them, but they will when you claim. However, it is of no importance to me if your insurance is invalid.

new_home_owner wrote: »

like someone said before whether you have a btl mortgage or a residential mortgage it makes no difference if your landlord doesnt pay the mortgage the house will still get reposessed.

It does make a difference. If you have a fixed term contract, the term of the contract is not honoured by the mortgage lender if the landlord failed to get permission to rent that property. It is an illegal let.

new_home_owner wrote: »

i have asked miss moneypenny before to give any type of previous case of a mortgage company reposessing a house for a landlord not getting consent and i have searched high and low across the intenet and i have never found any story or article of a landlord solely having their home reposessed for not getting consent.

Was that under this username; or one of your other usernames you post under on this site? Perhaps you would post the link where you asked this before and I missed it.

It really doesn't bother me what happens to landlords who get caught by their mortgage lender if they failed to get Consent to Let: it only bothers me what happens to their tenants if the property is repossessed. Tenants need to avoid these type of landlords.

new_home_owner wrote: »

The issue with miss moneypenny is she believes if people are wise enough not to approach the banks to get consnent to let, as they know the banks will rip them off with massive charges, she thinks they wont use a agent to let, hence it will hit her directly in the pocket.

Repeat from top of this post:
I'm not an EA. Are you saying that estate agents are asking landlords for proof of their Consent to Let before they let tenants in? Unfortunately that isn't true off all estate agents......yet.

Thanks for confirming that you also don't have Consent to Let. That's you and Welshwoofs who have just admitted that.

Tenants can now see how many illegal lets there are still out there and how important it is to protect themselves.