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

socrates

tbs624 wrote: »

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.

Perhaps there should be penalties BUT THERE ARE NOT!!!!

This is the whole crux of the matter you both keep bleating on about what should happen, what may happen but it does not work that way

The tenants are given plenty of notice I have seen it with my own eyes in the court room

So both of you need to stop scare mongering and stick to facts

And while we are there perhaps you should both start a thread on how the banks misled their mortgage customers on Libor and their casino style banking - did they stick to the terms of their agreements?

MissMoneypenny

socrates wrote: »

The tenants are given plenty of notice I have seen it with my own eyes in the court room

The whole point of this thread is to warn people to avoid landlords without Consent to Let. That way the tenants don't have to go to court to plead their case to have time to move home; don't lose some of their fixed tenancy; don't have to pay rent on two tenancies; don't have to deal with the financial stresses of the landlord. Although in cases where repossesion orders were granted before the tenancy is given, the tenant doesn't even get that!

I appreciate there are people out there who have got themselves in a financial mess and decide to let a property without their lenders consent; but that failure to have consent from the mortgage lender, is not in the best interest of the tenant (not that this type of landlord cares about their tenant). Tenants need to avoid these type of landlords, like the plague and stick to landords who do have consent. Tenants aren't charity workers who help the financially inept.

socrates wrote: »

And while we are there perhaps you should both start a thread on how the banks misled their mortgage customers on Libor and their casino style banking - did they stick to the terms of their agreements?

Yes, I'm sure there are many landlords who are struggling to pay their mortgage and many more will stuggle when Universal Credits come in, if they are claiming tax credits now. This is even more reason why tenants should take the time to check the landlord has in date consent to let and avoid those who don't show this proof.

tbs624

socrates wrote: »

Perhaps there should be penalties.....

...which is exactly what I said

socrates wrote: »

BUT THERE ARE NOT!!!!

Exactly so, and that is wrong. (No need to "shout" btw;))

socrates wrote: »

The tenants are given plenty of notice I have seen it with my own eyes in the court room

...you are missing the point. LLs are the first to moan if Ts try to renege on a Fixed Term tenancy - it is of little comfort to a T that they get a few weeks notice in ,say, October that the Lender wishes to shortly repossess the property (T's home remember) when the T had signed up for a tenancy which was supposed to lasting through to at least the following August. T is also likely to have difficulty recovering the tenancy deposit if LL is in financial difficulty . LLs who cut corners in one area tend to do so in others, such as deposit registration ( and let's not mention th eprobable failure to declare rental income to HMRC)

socrates wrote: »

So both of you need to stop scare mongering and stick to facts

My comment above is based on fact.

And while we are there perhaps you should both start a thread on how the banks misled their mortgage customers on Libor and their casino style banking - did they stick to the terms of their agreements?

There are plenty of threads covering that specific topic. The topic of *this* thread is how Ts are let down by idiot LLs who (a) seek to dupe their Lenders and (b) can't keep their finances in order whilst letting a property out

The majority of LLs ask for ever increasing amounts of personal information from Ts - all Ts should take time to enquire whether their potential LL has a mortgage and, if yes, seek written confirmation that the Lender is fully aware of the proposed tenancy through the existence of a BTL product or the granting of CTL.

franklee

tbs624 wrote: »

it is of little comfort to a T that they get a few weeks notice in ,say, October that the Lender wishes to shortly repossess the property (T's home remember) when the T had signed up for a tenancy which was supposed to lasting through to at least the following August.

All good points tbs624.

IMO it's the uncertainty that comes with being an unauthorised tenant that would bother me most. That there will be a repossession and when often isn't that clear cut, especially for a tenant who knows very little of his landlord's finances. The repossession order may be suspended or the repossession staved off late in the day. If the tenant in your above example arranged to move in October and the repossession is then postponed is the tenant then liable for rent until the following August as well as the rent on his new place? If not how does he get permission to end the tenancy early clearly in writing, he'd not likely get a let off from a landlord trying to stave off repossession who needs the rent pay the mortgage.

Also a tenant may start his tenancy long after the landlord has been missing mortgage payments (especially if the previous tenant left on hearing of the landlord's financial difficulties and then the landlord let again to the new tenant). There may be judgement already in place just waiting for the mortgage lender to enforce.

If the tenant has seen recent proof of consent to let he knows all was well with the lender as of that date. Ideally it would be nice to see proof that the mortgage has no arrears before the tenant signs up but if asking about consent to let (which is recommend by the government guidance and the likes of ARLA etc.) causes so much fuss from landlords I suspect asking about mortgage arrears would not go down well.

If a landlord hasn't got consent to let I have to ask why not and on this forum it often seems to be he can't afford it. For me it's all about selecting a landlord/agent/property that will give me the best chance of a stable home with a landlord who can afford to run the property well, can afford the mortgage, to pay for repairs and who isn't always wanting to increase the rent. Consent to let is a factor in that.

socrates

You are both patting each other on the back as always

But the facts remain and always has done since Page 1

Looking on LR tells you nothing about CTL

None of you have come up with any examples of an Insurance Claim not being paid out for having no CTL

It is highly unlikely a tenant will be turfed out overnight because their LL does not have CTL

There are a lot more tenants who have defaulted on their rent than LL's who do not have CTL

The bankers who feel so hard done by because a LL does not have CTL have lost us all a lot more than we could possibly imagine

All the companies that set up offshore to mitigate their taxes cost us a lot ore than LL's who do not declare their tax

I am bowing out as it is pointless trying to get through to the 3 of youafter 28 pages of this thread

But stop scare mongering people who are naive in these matters

franklee

socrates wrote: »

You are both patting each other on the back as always

But the facts remain and always has done since Page 1

Looking on LR tells you nothing about CTL

None of you have come up with any examples of an Insurance Claim not being paid out for having no CTL

It is highly unlikely a tenant will be turfed out overnight because their LL does not have CTL

There are a lot more tenants who have defaulted on their rent than LL's who do not have CTL

The bankers who feel so hard done by because a LL does not have CTL have lost us all a lot more than we could possibly imagine

All the companies that set up offshore to mitigate their taxes cost us a lot ore than LL's who do not declare their tax

I am bowing out as it is pointless trying to get through to the 3 of youafter 28 pages of this thread

But stop scare mongering people who are naive in these matters

If CTL didn't matter (as you were saying since page 1) then why did the law get changed in 2010 (some two years after this thread started in 2008) with the Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010 specifically to assist unauthorised tenants? The answer is because CTL did matter and tenants were getting chucked out with little notice (for which there are plenty of examples earlier in the thread). Things have improved greatly with the new act, however unauthorised tenants are still at a disadvantage for the reasons already given. Even the guidance to the new act says on 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."

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

socrates

franklee wrote: »

If CTL didn't matter (as you were saying since page 1) then why did the law get changed in 2010 (some two years after this thread started in 2008) with the Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010 specifically to assist unauthorised tenants? The answer is because CTL did matter and tenants were getting chucked out with little notice (for which there are plenty of examples earlier in the thread). Things have improved greatly with the new act, however unauthorised tenants are still at a disadvantage for the reasons already given. Even the guidance to the new act says on 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."

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

Show me where I said CTL does not matter

What I have said since the beginning is that if there is no CTL it affects very few people to the extremes that you all claim

But keep cutting that cloth to fit

franklee

socrates wrote: »

Show me where I said CTL does not matter

What I have said since the beginning is that if there is no CTL it affects very few people to the extremes that you all claim

But keep cutting that cloth to fit

It affected enough tenants to warrant a whole new act (Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010) so someone must have thought it enough tenants to make that worthwhile. The guidance gives us the background to the 2010 act:

Page 6:
"3.1 Rationale for legislative intervention

Prior to the Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010, unauthorised tenants could be evicted from their homes at very short notice because their landlord had fallen into arrears with their mortgage payments and the lender had started proceedings for possession of the property. The tenant had no legal rights to be heard in the proceedings as the tenant was ‘unauthorised’ and had no rights against the lender as the tenancy was unauthorised. The issue was brought to the Government’s attention by the housing charity sector. The sector provided many examples of eviction at short notice and the heightened distress and disruption it caused to a variety of households. Due to the hidden nature of the problem, it is not possible to give an accurate picture of how many tenants are affected. However the impact assessment supporting the legislation estimates the numbers to be 5,000 – 20,000 in a ten-year time scale between 2010 6 and 2020."

It's a simple thing for a tenant to do to politely ask for proof of consent to let thus making sure that tenant knows he will get notice under the tenancy agreement even if there is a repossession. It also means the landlord met the lender's terms. So for a BTL mortgage that means there is sufficient equity to keep the lender happy and make the rental coverage of the let high enough for a viable business. For consent on a residential loan it also means the lender is happy with the landlord's financial position at that time. This is important as so often accidental landlords posting on here have a naive few of the expenses of being a landlord. So often they write the rent each month just covers the mortgage forgetting to take voids, agent's fees, repairs, interest rate changes etc. into account. One bad tenant not paying rent for a few months could wipe them out. If that happens I would not wish to be the next tenant they let to. Besides what tenant wants a let that the lender thinks isn't viable, will such a landlord be able to afford repairs?

I do not see that this is scaremongering. No one says it's scaremongering for a landlord to ask a tenant for say employment references in order to give the landlord the best chance the rent is paid. Asking about consent to let is part of a tenant referencing a landlord to give the tenant the best chance of a sable home.

I'd rather know I'm going to get notice under the tenancy agreement than risk facing face the uncertainty of these recent threads:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4111525
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/55096739#Comment_55096739

MissMoneypenny

tbs624 wrote: »

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.

That would be much better than the tenant having to sue the landlord or letting agent. But until that comes in, tenants' should ensure they have taken out Legal Cover on their contents insurance policy and that it doesn't exclude legal action against, a landlord.
That way, when their claim is approved, the tenant won't have any legal bills and will also get the satisfaction of knowing that the letting agents and/or landlord, will be be passed their legal bill from the insurers as well as having to foot their own legal bill.

MissMoneypenny

socrates wrote: »

The bankers who feel so hard done by because a LL does not have CTL have lost us all a lot more than we could possibly imagine

You do realise that this banking/world crisis has been caused by those who people who are in a financial mess and can't keep up their repayments to the banks? It was caused by poor lending practices too, to these type of people.

I digress; this thread is about warning people not to rent from people who haven't been given permission to let the property, as the tenant won't have the same protection as those tenents who have landlords who have been given permmission by their mortgage lender. A quick check and avoid the property if no consent, is all it takes from the tenant. If a landlord hasn't got the finances to get consent to let, then I doubt they will have the money to pay for big repairs either i.e. a new boiler.

As I said above, I'm sorry for those of you that are in a financial mess; but tenants need to protect themselves and their familes from getting dragged in to someone elses financial problems, by ensuring they don't rent from someone who hasn't got their lenders consent to let.