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

Sarah2100

This has happened to me, it is essential that you check your landloard has permission of thier broker or you havent got a leg to stand on, also make sure he has house insurance, hope this helps :beer:
Sarah

socrates

Sarah2100 wrote: »

This has happened to me, it is essential that you check your landloard has permission of thier broker or you havent got a leg to stand on, also make sure he has house insurance, hope this helps :beer:
Sarah

What happened to you?

franklee

bobwilson wrote: »

Okay, it's time someone finally kicked some sense into this thread.. why would you WANT to check whether your landlord has or doesn't have permission for you to be renting the property?

If he doesn't have permission, all you're going to do is end up getting kicked out..! :rotfl:

What possible motive could there be to do this?

Ideally a tenant would check for consent to let before they agree to the tenancy and if they're not satisfied then find another landlord who is doing it right.

Once in it's a bit late as by then they are bound by the tenancy agreement. Even so why would a landlord chuck out a good tenant just for asking that? Even so they'd need to give appropriate notice. You could say the same about asking for a gas safety check or asking for repairs to be done, the landlord can always serve retaliatory notice.

TroubledLandlord

...I didn't have permission to let, but let out anyway. I then, after receiving a sizeable bonus, went to the mortgage company and told them what I was doing and braced for financial impact. The result was that they wanted to put me onto a buy to let mortgage which cost more each month.

They also wanted something in the rental contract about how the bank can still repossess the home whenever they have to despite the tenancy.

So, I end up paying more to the bank and the tenant has no more protection. In fact, I'd suggest as a tenant that you probably want the mortgage NOT to be buy to let. Then it's cheaper and more likely that the landlord is paying it. Checking that the landlord has permission, in my view, makes NO difference to how secure you are a tenant and actually increases the chance of something wrong happening.

ukstocks5

so what route do lenders usally take when they find out that a property is being let out when a resedential morgtage is in place

prudryden

ukstocks5 wrote: »

so what route do lenders usally take when they find out that a property is being let out when a resedential morgtage is in place

Firstly: What relationship does the customer have with the lender? e.g. he could be one of the lender's biggest customers in other areas. In that case, they would do absolutely nothing.

Secondly: How much is the remainder of the mortgage? If it is small, the customer would probably just pay it off if the lender got sassy. In that case, they would probably do nothing.

Thirdly: If the customer paid regularly and is a good credit risk, the lender may ask for some additional interest payments. In that case, it would probably be a negotiation on how much. It may even be nothing.

Fourthly: If the customer is a potential credit risk, the lender as a worst case scenario could call in the loan.

If your renting on a 12m AST with the normal 6mo break clause, the safety factor for you is probaly a couple of months extra notice period, so with the limited rental properties available, I wouldn't be in too much of a panic over it.

TroubledLandlord

In my case I took out a long term (10 year) fixed rate mortgage around 2006 which is fairly large interest rate wise (6% ?!?!?). It was paid EVERY month without fail. When I came clean they wanted to put me on a B2L mortgage. Thing is, interests rates are now a fraction of what they were before. So had they of moved my mortgage then their monthly payments would've collapsed. So they backed away from that pretty quickly. In the end they just gave me permission to let on the more expensive mortgage. Either way, from what I can see, it generally ends one way, as long as you've been a good boy and paid it always on time, and that is with them trying to get more money.

tbs624

TroubledLandlord wrote: »

In the end they just gave me permission to let on the more expensive mortgage. Either way, from what I can see, it generally ends one way, as long as you've been a good boy and paid it always on time, and that is with them trying to get more money.

There is a greater risk to the Lender when a property is tenanted therfore it stands to reason that your mortgage product should cost you more if you rent the property out. Increased risk= increased £££.

If you take out a resi mortage then you are expected to use those funds for your own residential purposes. It's funny how those who think it's okay to ignore the small print of their Lender's Ts and Cs often bleat when their Ts perhaps seek to ignore the small print of their tenancy agreement.

Generally, if a LL is cutting corners on notifying their Lender they are highly likely to be cutting corners elsewhere. LL insurance - nope, they kept their resi policy on. Gas safety Cert - what's that then? Tenancy deposit registration , HMRC declaration - well no, because this let is "under the radar" and the LL would rather it be kept that way.

For any T who wants to know what their rights are, if their LLs property is about to be repossessed by their Lender, have a look here link

misstheo

Could this be used to end a tenancy agreement early? I'm pretty sure my current LL hasn't advised their mortgage company. Of course I wouldn't want to do this to someone but If after exploring all other options i.e asking for early release, getting another tenant etc doesn't work. Could this be an option to effectively get kicked out?

7sefton

First time potential tenant here and would appreciate some advice on the following:

I've just checked the land registry and it doesn't appear that my prospective landlord has Consent to Let (her address is listed on the document as the same as the rental property). Moreover, when I went to view the house she said one of the conditions of the rental agreement is that I keep all post addressed to her at the house and give it to her each week. HOWEVER under 'Lender(s)' it reads 'None', suggesting she owns the property outright.

I'm desperate for the house, but does this sound dodgy? And if so, is there any way I can reassure myself without the need to abandon this property and start the whole search again?

Thanks so much for any help