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

dacouch

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

The other problem is that the landlords insurance may be void if he doesn't have Consent to Let, even if they have landlords insurance. See the ARLA links on this thread warning about this. If the house catches fire and the tenant is maimed or killed, the landlords claim to his insurers may be void.

If the Landlord has a Landlord's Insurance Policy the chances of it being void due to not having consent to let are very very very small if at all

MissMoneypenny

dacouch wrote: »

If the Landlord has a Landlord's Insurance Policy the chances of it being void due to not having consent to let are very very very small if at all

If that's what some landllords are banking on, then they may be in for a very big financial shock.

This warning is on the Association of Residential Letting Agents site

http://www.arla.co.uk/information/in...ngs-insurance/

"Consent. It is essential that you advise and obtain consent to let your property from your mortgage lender, existing insurer and head lessee (for leasehold properties). Failure to obtain written consent from these parties may render your insurance void in the event of a claim. Sadly there have been many instances where buildings claims have been totally rejected because the insurer and or mortgage lender was not advised the property was let."

dacouch

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

If that's what some landllords are banking on, then they may be in for a very big financial shock.

This warning is on the Association of Residential Letting Agents site

http://www.arla.co.uk/information/in...ngs-insurance/

"Consent. It is essential that you advise and obtain consent to let your property from your mortgage lender, existing insurer and head lessee (for leasehold properties). Failure to obtain written consent from these parties may render your insurance void in the event of a claim. Sadly there have been many instances where buildings claims have been totally rejected because the insurer and or mortgage lender was not advised the property was let."

Just because it says so on the Arla website does not make it fact.

What is a fact, is an Insurer cannot decline a claim based on a warranty that has no bearing on a claim. For instance a policy may contain a warranty stating the property must have certain types of locks, if the property floods, not having the locks has made no difference to the claim so it must be paid.

The same principle would apply to a requirement that the landlord must have CTL, do you have any suggestions on what claims would be directly influenced by the Landlord not having CTL.

Incidently I have never ever seen a Landlord Policy which makes having CTL a requirement of cover. Please feel free to find me a policy that has this requirement.

If you can find a policy making CTL a requirement, there's a small chance that providing the application form (And any subdequent renewal invitations) have a very clear question about having CTL and the proposer deliberately answered the question incorrectly then there might be a chance of a policy being voided due to non disclosure. Although this may well be over turned by the Ombudsman whose view of things is whether they're fair which may mean he would overturn it. N.B If there was just a statement requiring it in the policy booklet the chances of enforcing it are practically zero

As stated above, even if there is a requirement to have CTL, the chances of it affecting a claim are incredibly remote.

dacouch

I would love to see these claims the ARLA reckon have been declined due to lack of CTL, they either don't exist or the people making the claim have not received advice from anyone who understands Insurance contracts

P.S That link from the ARLA has a glaring error under the Employers Liability Paragraph.

MissMoneypenny

dacouch wrote: »

Just because it says so on the Arla website does not make it fact.

How about insurance companies....... like Endsleigh?

The paperwork will need to specify that you have permission to let the property. Without this, your insurance could become void in the event of a claim.
http://www.endsleigh.co.uk/Home/Landlords/Pages/Landlord-Info-Centre.aspx

Quite good of them to state this really; most people won't find out their insurance is void until they try to claim. Insurers like taking your money, but employ teams of people to look for ways to avoid paying out.

dacouch

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

How about insurance companies....... like Endsleigh?

The paperwork will need to specify that you have permission to let the property. Without this, your insurance could become void in the event of a claim.
http://www.endsleigh.co.uk/Home/Landlords/Pages/Landlord-Info-Centre.aspx

Quite good of them to state this really; most people won't find out their insurance is void until they try to claim. Insurers like taking your money, but employ teams of people to look for ways to avoid paying out.

Good spot, however Endsleigh are not an Insurer, they're an agent, the advice you have found must have been written by someone with little knowledge of Insurance.

Your link does not in any way prove your argument as a) If you run a quote through they do not ask about consent to let b) they do not list it in the requirements c) It's not in the policy.

Even if they wanted to make it a requirement of the policy which I very much doubt they do, they would not be able to enforce it as there are no questions, statements and it's not in the policy.

If an Insurer wanted to be able to decline claims for not having CTL they would have to ask very clear questions about it see here http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm

The advice you have linked to was probably written by someone in their marketing department with limited knowledge of Insurance.

Feel free to run a quote through with them to check what I say, here is the policy wording so you can have a good read.

https://secure.endsleigh.co.uk/HostDocs/PolicyBooklets/LLDPNL/current.pdf

MissMoneypenny

Will your insurer put into writing to you that they will pay out on a claim, even though you haven't received permission to let the property?

dacouch

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Will your insurer put into writing to you that they will pay out on a claim, even though you haven't received permission to let the property?

Yes they would.

Every single Insurer that does not specifically ask whether you have Consent to Let in a clear question or makes it a stiplulation that you have consent to let to qualify in a very clear and obvious place. Has in effect put it in writing that they will pay out. The ommission of the question / stipulation or a badly worded question means they in effect have to pay out.

Did you bother to read my link from the Ombudsman? I assume you have not other wise you would understand how the Ombudsman treats badly worded questions / stipulations.

By not asking a question, which as you have not come back with an Insurer who actually specifically ask a question I assume you have not found anyone. They cannot decline a claim on information that is not declared due to them not asking a question.

Have a read of the link from the Ombudsman, if you want I can supply you with more links.

In the mean time, try and find an Insurer who actually ask about it.

If you don't believe me, ask a question on the Insurance forum of MSE to the effect. "I do not have consent to let, I have bought a landlords policy, can the Insurer decline a claim for not having CTL if they do not ask a question about it or stipulate it's a requirement" I guarantee they will give you the same answer I have.

On the same basis eg not asking a question about say "Do you have ginger hair". Do you really think an Insurer could decline a claim if they have not asked whether you have ginger hair and you did not declare it.

The catch all disclaimer on a proposal form advising you to declare any "Material information" is basically not enforcable. They have to ask specific well worded questions, if they have not then they cannot then decline a claim for something they did not ask a question about.

Personally I would trust the Financial Ombudsmans published rules and guidance over the ARLA whose experience of Insurance is no where near that of the Ombudsman. They probably got their guidance notes (Which have a few other errors) from some ropey broker or they got the right advice and added their own spin.

Once again, your declining claims for lack of CTL is in effect an urban myth, perpetuated by people such as yourselves and the internet.

socrates

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

That statement is untrue, as well you should know after all this time (I hope). A fixed term tenancy is not houroured if the landlord has failed to gain permission to let the property from the mortgage lender. In these cases, the tenant has to keep paying their rent until the property is repossesed and will be unable to move to another proepty if they can't afford 2 rents per month.

Who wants the hassle of going to court to tell the courts you are a tenant in the property and try to persuade the court to give you 2 months to move out (and you still have to pay the rest of the tenancy contract until the house is repossessed) because the landlord hasn't got permission to let; when you can simply avoid these types of people in the first place, by checking they have permsission before you rent!

Some landlords even let a property when they already have a repossession order on it! In these cases, there is no recourse for extra time to move, for the poor tenant.

When these poor hassled tenants and their families who have been doing the decent thing and paying their rent, finally get out of the property, they can sue the letting agent (taking by deception) and the landlord, if he has any money i.e.other properties he owns, including the one he lives in. Which is why all tenants should ensure they have taken out the optional extra of Legal Cover on their house contents policy (ensuring they read the insurance policy document to check suing landlords is not excluded) as this will cover all legal costs once they agree to take your case. With the added satisfaction of knowing your insurer will be passing your legal bill onto the landlord and/or letting agent.

The other problem is that the landlords insurance may be void if he doesn't have Consent to Let, even if they have landlords insurance. See the ARLA links on this thread warning about this. If the house catches fire and the tenant is maimed or killed, the landlords claim to his insurers may be void and you will have to claim off the landlord and/or letting agent.

There are a lot of unsavoury people around and it is much better to avoid these people by checking the landlord has an in date Consent to Let or Buy to Let mortgage. If the landlord is unable to show this proof, then avoid them and just report them to the tax man and their lender (the former online and the latter in one quick phonecall to the lenders fraud department giving evgidence of their intentions to let, if possible) as a favour to other tenants and the decent landlords'.

As always you part quote and cut the cloth to fit

The original question was:

so, without having to read 27 pages of this thread, how does having a landlord not registered directly impact tenants?

One answer was

If LL has not obtained consent to let from his mortgage provider, in (rare?) cases you could be evicted at short notice.

and my answer was

Except the law has changed and that can no longer be done

So to answer the original question by Flibsey -

not a lot!!

You have decided as always to scare monger

Firstly it would take months and months for a tenant to be evicted - the lender would have to approach the LL and demand increased mortgage payments, the LL would then have to default and finally get repossessed for NON PAYMENT not for NOT OBTAINING CTL

In all your continued efforts you have yet to show us any examples of someone being turfed out overnight or someones insurance claim being void because CTL was not obtained

This is a hugely used forum - someone by now would have provided an example of either of these situations and it would hav been discussed to death - just like this subject has been

tbs624

socrates wrote: »

The original question was:

so, without having to read 27 pages of this thread, how does having a landlord not registered directly impact tenants?

One answer was

If LL has not obtained consent to let from his mortgage provider, in (rare?) cases you could be evicted at short notice.

and my answer was

Except the law has changed and that can no longer be done

So to answer the original question by Flibsey -

not a lot!!

The change to the law has not given Ts of such LLs huge protection: they can still be booted out prior to the expiry of their Fixed Term albeit with *some* notice. That's obviously fine and dandy IYO then Socrates?

There is of course the fact that such LLs will be among to the first to bleat when a T fails to meet the Ts and Cs of their tenancy agreement, despite the fact that the LL omits to abide by the Ts and Cs of their own mortgage agreement. Hypocrisy? I reckon so.

Perhaps there should be an automatic penalty awarded to Ts who find their tenancy unexpectedly cut short - say 2 x the rent equivalent on the unexpired part of the tenancy agreement. Let's remember that when a T unexpectedly loses their home (important word there- home) in this way they incur a further set of highly inflated fees in order to find a new property, plus trying to sort a new deposit & rent upfront when the LL may have disappeared with their original (often unregistered) deposit funds as well as having reneged on mortgage repayments.