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

MissMoneypenny

silvercar wrote: »

If I was a tenant and would be more concerned as to whether a potential landlord's mortgage was up to date. If it was I would know that a 6 month tenancy would be safe. I would prefer that to a CTL on a resi mortgage with mortgage arrears.

I'll repeat this here too:-

That could quickly go into arrears if the mortgage lender finds they rented out the property and impose an immediate interest rate rise and all back charges.

Apart from all the techie ways they now have to trace those who let without consent; some landlords got caught out when banks merge or take over other banks mortgages and addreses don't match. The Lloyds/Halifax joining caused a few letters to go out, telling the borrower that they suspected they were renting out their property without consent.

In this dire economic situation of bailouts, some banks are being forced to sell off some of their mortgages. BoI had to been bailed out and had loan conditions put on that they have to sell some of their mortgages. Nationwide has taken over some of these and BoI still has more to get rid of - but to which banks and will those names and addresses match?;)

tbs624

Please click on the SPAM button for post 500 folks


Edit: original post no. 500 now removed by MSE. Don't click on Silvercar's post!

MissMoneypenny

tbs624 wrote: »

Please click on the SPAM button for post 500 folks

Have done. Thanks tbs.

:spam:

I've been wanting to use this icon.:)

franklee

silvercar wrote: »

If the landlord is currently living in the property you could ask for evidence that they have CTL, though they may not obtain it in writing until they have a tenant.

fordy wrote: »

The owner/Landlord is currently living at the flat, I had hoped the LA who showed us (and the 4 other couples around!) would have sorted this out, isn't it the LA's responsibility to make sure BEFORE they go ahead and let it?

They should get CTL with evidence before marketing the property. From the Guidance to the Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/mortgagerepossessionguidance

Page 17:

10.1 How can a tenant check if their landlord has obtained the necessary consent to let?

Professional letting agents should request evidence from a landlord that the property has received consent to let from the landlord’s lender. Letting agents should not market a property for letting if they have not satisfied themselves that this has been obtained. The tenant can request this assurance from their landlord.

silvercar

franklee wrote: »

They should get CTL with evidence before marketing the property. From the Guidance to the Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/mortgagerepossessionguidance

Page 17:

10.1 How can a tenant check if their landlord has obtained the necessary consent to let?

Professional letting agents should request evidence from a landlord that the property has received consent to let from the landlord’s lender. Letting agents should not market a property for letting if they have not satisfied themselves that this has been obtained. The tenant can request this assurance from their landlord.

Interestingly,that document claims to give unauthorised tenants the same rights as authorised tenants. Para 1.2.

I'm not convinced it does.

franklee

silvercar wrote: »

Interestingly,that document claims to give unauthorised tenants the same rights as authorised tenants. Para 1.2.

I'm not convinced it does.

If unauthorised tenants were given the same rights as authorised ones then the act would have made the unauthorised tenancy binding on the lender. It clearly hasn't done that, quite the reverse it goes out of it's way to say the tenancy isn't binding on the lender.

Anyway here's that introductory paragraph, I think it's emphasising the length of notice will be the same which is right they are both two months:

1.2
The Mortgage Possessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010
The Act provides unauthorised tenants with the right to request a delay to eviction of up to two months if their landlord (the mortgage-holder) falls into arrears with their mortgage payments and the lender (the mortgagee) commences possession proceedings. This puts an unauthorised tenant on a level playing field with ‘authorised’ tenants holding an assured shorthold tenancy. It is not intended to grant ‘unauthorised’ tenants any greater rights than they would have if they were ‘authorised’ tenants.

One of the problems an unauthorised tenant has is he doesn't know till late on in the day if he will get the two months and when it will be. So the logistics for him are harder than if two clear months notice dropped on his doormat that the authorised tenant gets.

The unauthorised tenant can't commit to a new tenancy as he will end up owing two sets of rent if the repossession is staved off at the eleventh hour. Actually the document falls short on how a tenant should handle that as the possible outcomes of a possession hearing may not be that clear cut, it could be adjourned or there could be a suspended order for possession. I hope in those cases the court explains to the tenant if he is free to move and end his liability to pay rent. But if anyone knows the answer to this I'd like to know

Page 10 doesn't answer it:

A suspended order is a relatively common outcome. It gives mortgage-holders a further chance to pay – and retain their property – and also gives the lender security. The possession order is granted – the lender has a right to possession and the order fixes a date for possession – but the court has suspended possession upon compliance with particular conditions. In the case of the landlord/mortgage-holder, such conditions may be the payment of the current monthly instalment and an agreed amount towards the arrears. However, upon a breach of those conditions, the lender is entitled to enforce the possession order immediately by applying for a warrant of possession. This is an administrative process with no hearing.

I suspect a tenant facing that who has found somewhere else and wants to move away from the hassle would need to get legal advice on if he is free to go or not.

franklee

There is an interesting comment from Tessa on her blog about ways for landlords to protect their properties against fraudsters. Point 2. is to provide a different address to the Land Registry as the address for service. I hadn't thought of the land registry address issue from the landlord's security point of view but Tessa makes a good point. The blog item is here:

http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2012/02/08/five-ways-for-landlords-to-protect-properties-against-fraudsters-and-criminals/

Yorkie1

zak... spam reported

[Deleted User]

My landlord has his address down on the title register as the property I'm renting, which has a mortgage. Also I still get post addressed to him from the property management company that look after the estate. (I don't open these but googling the 'undelivered' address on the back of the envelope brings this up.)

angeltreats

We've suspected for a while that our landlords haven't got a BTL mortgage or consent to let, due to post from their lender being addressed to them at our house (which they have never actually lived in). I looked up the Land Registry title and sure enough, the address listed for them is our address. So I phoned their lender, Nationwide, who said they didn't care and couldn't, wouldn't and didn't want to pursue it - apparently we would need to speak to our landlords and voice our concerns with them and perhaps they could get in touch with Nationwide and see about converting their mortgage - they didn't even want to know the property address, lender's names or actual address or any other details.

I am genuinely shocked. Our landlords are extremely unreasonable people and I know it would be more useful/helpful to speak to a brick wall.

Any ideas what else I could do to have this looked into? We are naturally concerned about the buildings insurance and repossession issues.