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

Penelopa.Pitstop

silvercar wrote: »

Possibly, possibly not. He may have explained to the lender that his work has taken him overseas so needs consent to let in the short term. Who knows?

If he applied for the mortgage as residential without initially living in it, he has committed fraud (obtaining money by deception) a totally different case to letting out a former residential home without consent.

He's been living in Asia for the last 10 years so I don't think you could say he's letting the flat for the short term. I'll chat to the agent before I sign any papers. I don't expect him to be repossesed any time soon anyway ;-)

franklee

socrates wrote: »

Miss Moneypenny - you still have not explained one thing and please answer only this question - how do you know when you pay £3 if the landlord has consent to let if the address is the same as the address the tenant is renting?

If I could just stick my oar in here

If the landlord purchased the property as a BTL then he will be living elsewhere and thus his address will not be that of the property to be rented out.

If the property was the landlord's former home and so he has a residential mortgage and has consent to let from the lender then logic says he will have informed the lender of his new address.

Ergo the landlord's address still being that of the rental address is worth querying. It is an indicator that the landlord may not have consent to let and gives a tenant good reason to be asking for proof of consent. If that's not forthcoming then I would think there was no consent. If the tenant asks nicely and explains why he is asking then I seen no reason for a decent landlord who had done everything above board to mind.

I think tenants who receive the landlord's correspondence from the lender at the
rental address should query this point.

Also bear in mind that the landlord may have let the property AFTER repossession proceedings have been started so a new tenant needs to be wary!

silvercar

franklee wrote:

If the property was the landlord's former home and so he has a residential mortgage and has consent to let from the lender then logic says he will have informed the lender of his new address.

Informed the lender yes, but probably not informed land registry.

Agree with the rest of your post BTW.

Question: What proof can a landlord provide to a tenant?

franklee

silvercar wrote: »

Informed the lender yes, but probably not informed land registry.

Agree with the rest of your post BTW.

Question: What proof can a landlord provide to a tenant?

Of course the land registry entry may be out of date, which is why I said indicator. It does seem from the forum that quite often people who started out with a residential mortgage do not seek consent to let, so that would be my reason for asking. It's a way to have good reason to ask instead of just assuming the landlord was dishonest. The "I see you had a residential mortgage and your address wasn't changed perhaps you didn't realise you needed consent to let" approach.

As for how to prove it. Presumably in gaining consent to let for a residential mortgage there was some correspondence. A simple letter would suffice. If there was nothing written down then I'd expect a lender would pop confirmation in writing to the landlord should he request it. The landlord could show the tenant the letter!

MissMoneypenny

silvercar wrote: »

Question: What proof can a landlord provide to a tenant?

A mortgage broker on the landlord site singingpig, has said that

"many of the housing associations/councils will want to see proof that your lender will allow you to let to them before starting the contract. "
http://www.singingpig.co.uk/forums/thread/694647.aspx

If councils and housing associations are asking for this proof to safeguard themselves and their tenants, then surely it if makes sense that private tenants should be asking landlords for this proof too.

MissMoneypenny

socrates wrote: »

Miss Moneypenny - you still have not explained one thing and please answer only this question - how do you know when you pay £3 if the landlord has consent to let if the address is the same as the address the tenant is renting?

You don't. The fact the address is the same should send off warning bells. The landlord should be able to prove to the tenant that they have received permission to rent that property. Housing Associations and councils ask for this proof from landlords before they will rent the property and private tenants should ask for it too.

From the same link as my above post, to a landlord site:-

"seriously, if everyone who rented a PPR property out without the lender's permission was imprisoned, we'd need to double the prison population!"
http://www.singingpig.co.uk/forums/thread/694647.aspx

That isn't a one off either. There are many posts on this moneysaving site (mainly on this board and the mortgages board) where some posters encourage landlords not to ask permission to rent if they are worried they will be turned down, or have to pay to get that permission.

socrates

The first 2 words from your response were enough

"You don't"

So the original premise of your argument was that you could tell by the address on Land Registry - now you are admitting that you cannot.

Simple fact is this in the current climate lenders are more than happy to get paid their monthly mortgage payment.

If you were suggesting a change in the law whereby every landlord had to provide the tenant with some kind of document which was provided to them by the lender then we are talking sense.

However being that it is a sensible law to pass this or any future government will never pass it!

After all you only need to look at the new Local Housing Allowance Law to see what a stupid policy that is - but don't get me started on that one!

Until the next time we cross swords....

franklee

Interesting links MissMoneypenny!

Good grief:

http://www.singingpig.co.uk/forums/permalink/694647/695759/ShowThread.aspx#695759

Pod: "as an aside, half the people on this site (me included) have bought a PPR prop with a plan to rent it out. buy, pay the mortgage, wait a while, contact lender with a spurious change of circumstances, receive permission to let, and as long as it stacks up, you have a 25 year mortgage at PPR LTV levels ... voila! it's not fraud as such, but if i came claen BEFORE the lender lent to me on a PPR basis, the lender would refuse the loan."

And yet:

http://www.singingpig.co.uk/forums/permalink/694647/696998/ShowThread.aspx#696998

Pod: "my feelings are that NMD is going to become harder and harder to do ... and let's be honest here, there are a lot of people (espcially firms of brokers) who would be extremely concerned if (for example) HBOS Group Internal Audit decided to audit the underwriting process for BTL mortgages ... selecting a sample of cases from known investor-focussed brokers and packagers. i was approached recently to write just such a programme of work ... as i happen to know a few people. i didn't take the work in the end, but had a really interesting chat about what they might want to look for, tell-tale signs ......... etc. they are keen for me to review the proposed work if (when) it goes ahead."

That's funny in a who guards the guards sort of way :rotfl:

franklee

socrates wrote: »

Simple fact is this in the current climate lenders are more than happy to get paid their monthly mortgage payment.

If you were suggesting a change in the law whereby every landlord had to provide the tenant with some kind of document which was provided to them by the lender then we are talking sense.

However being that it is a sensible law to pass this or any future government will never pass it!

I suppose a law would be nice but the absence of one doesn't mean tenants shouldn't watch their backs as best they can. I would not dream of renting a property without getting the land registry entry, googleing for the landlord, checking 192.com etc. etc. I do this to get as much feel as I can for the landlord's circumstances.

Even getting a landlord's name exactly right is worthwhile, I remember eagerlearner had a devil of a time tracing her landlady who had not only provided a dodgy address but had used more than one name so her real name was unclear. This made service of notices on her tricky and hampered eagerlearner getting her deposit back.

At the end of the day it pays to know who you are doing business with.

TJ27

Well I don't think that the information provided should be relied upon but I promise you that I did it yesterday.