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

CMcW

So what is the position then? Should tenants be checking the LL has permission to let, and if so how would we go about this?

What is the consequence if I, as a tenant, have reason to make a legal claim or whatever against my LL and it turns out she doesn't have permission to let anyway? Does that nullify my contract, is that an eviction notice for me?

I'm a bit confused, never run across this issue before although I do know that the LL has to have permission of course.

Land_Registry

silvercar wrote: »

Even less reason to check the land registry. I've always said that if a different address is shown then it is safe to assume the landlord has CTL or BTL or some other commercial arrangement, but that the same address tells you nothing. Now it seems there are even more reasons why the addresses could be the same.

Land Reg rep, can I ask you if a mortgage lender would automatically be informed if an owner notified a change of address to the land registry?

The mortage lender would not be automatically informed. Any requirement to notify would only exist between borrower and lender.

As mentioned the primary purpose of the registered 'address for service' is for Land Registry to be able to correspond with the relevant owner.

However, and quite naturally, as the information is in in the public domain it will be put to other uses or indeed interpreted as being their actual place of residence but it is important to recognise it's original purpose and that it is in effect intended as merely their 'letterbox' for receipt of correspondence from Land Registry.

silvercar

Land_Registry_representative wrote: »

The mortage lender would not be automatically informed. Any requirement to notify would only exist between borrower and lender.

As mentioned the primary purpose of the registered 'address for service' is for Land Registry to be able to correspond with the relevant owner.

However, and quite naturally, as the information is in in the public domain it will be put to other uses or indeed interpreted as being their actual place of residence but it is important to recognise it's original purpose and that it is in effect intended as merely a 'letterbox' for receipt of correspondence from Land Registry.

Very helpful.

So for future reference to those who are advise posters to check whether their landlord has CTL/ BTL/ etc, checking the Land Registry means nothing. In fact the advice should be that there is no way to confirm independently whether a landlord has CTL.

franklee

Land_Registry_representative wrote: »

An address for service is an address where Land Registry can send correspondence to the named person i.e. property owner and which relates to the property.

Clearly there are a number of reasons why we would recommend that the address supplied is a current one and one where they can actually collect the mentioned correspondence.

Thank you Land Registry representative.

So techcastoni could write a letter addressed to the named property owner at his address given at the land registry (which is the address techcastoni lives at without the property owner) and post it hoping there is postal redirection in place or that the letter gets forwarded by the first tenant/techcastoni's landlord.

If I was in a position where I found my "landlord" had sublet I would want proof that the property owner consented to the other tenants moving in. If a property owner isn't contactable the other tenants cannot let him know what is going on which would seem a risk to the property owner. It gives a lot of power to the first tenant who may not be acting with the consent of the property owner or in his interests.

Given it sounds like five households at techcastoni's (first tenant's family, techcastoni, plus three other tenants) I would check the HMO regs which may mean the property should have modifications e.g. for fire safety, which would need the property owner to have done or have consented to. IF it's all above board then there is a lot of trust given to the first tenant by the property owner which is unusual but they may be close, who knows.

socrates

silvercar wrote: »

Very helpful.

So for future reference to those who are advise posters to check whether their landlord has CTL/ BTL/ etc, checking the Land Registry means nothing. In fact the advice should be that there is no way to confirm independently whether a landlord has CTL.

Which is exactly what we have both said all along

Whilst the 3 scare mongers sit there thanking each other over and over for their respective posts - just look and see who is thanking MissMoneypenny, Franklee and tbs64

Finally from the horses mouth - now they might actually listen!!

LR means nothing

No examples of Insurance Companies not paying out for lack of CTL

Very very few - indeed almost no examples of people being turfed out over night

Keep posting and keep thanking each other - fact remains the laws are not in place - yet

I hope some day they will be in place so that we do not have to sit here and read you droning on about hypothetical situations

franklee

CMcW wrote: »

So what is the position then? Should tenants be checking the LL has permission to let, and if so how would we go about this?

What is the consequence if I, as a tenant, have reason to make a legal claim or whatever against my LL and it turns out she doesn't have permission to let anyway? Does that nullify my contract, is that an eviction notice for me?

I'm a bit confused, never run across this issue before although I do know that the LL has to have permission of course.

Well I've tried a summary for you, unfortunately not that short but hopefully gives you some idea.

Basically if the property was let without the knowledge or consent of the lender, and in contravention of the mortgage agreement then although the tenancy is binding on the tenant it isn't binding on the landlord's lender. This is called an unauthorised tenancy.

I suggest you start reading this link to get an overview:
http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/repossession/repossession_by_a_landlords_lender

Then follow up with the government guidance to the Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010 to get the background to the new act and how they anticipate a tenant should use it. It also contains the legislation, examples of court forms etc. so although it looks long it's readable (probably a couple of cups of tea to get through it). Link here:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/mortgagerepossessionguidance

So things are much better with the new act. However it does leave the tenant with some logistical headaches. For some examples:

There may not be much time between a court hearing for the tenant to apply for the two month delay and the eviction date. This leaves the tenant with the worry of needing a quick move if the application for two months delay isn't granted. Hopefully it will be granted but the doubt however small is still there so maybe a bit stressful.

The lender may ignore the tenant's letters, in which case the tenant applies to court for the delay.

A tenant say on a periodic tenancy can side step the hassle by finding a new home and serving their own notice to leave. However the tenant with several months left on their fixed term is not free to do that without risking having to pay two lots of rent so probably has to wait and see what happens with the repossession.

From the guidance:

"10.11 Can the tenant request another delay to possession if their landlord clears arrears and then falls into arrears again?

A landlord may receive a suspended possession order and at the same time the tenant may have requested and received a delay to possession. If the landlord complies with the terms of the suspended possession order in full then the order may fall away. If this happens quickly the tenant, despite having previously received a delay to possession, may decide to remain in the property now that the possession will not be enforced. If subsequently the landlord falls into arrears again, the lender will have to bring new proceedings and seek a new possession order. In this situation it is our view that there is nothing to prevent a tenant requesting a delay to possession again as this is a new possession process and that it would be within the jurisdiction of the court to allow this. This is ultimately a matter for the courts to decide."

Which doesn't explain what happens if the repossession is staved off but the tenant is already committed to move during the fixed term. When does the tenant's liability to pay rent end? I've no idea on that one so if anyone knows it would be good to hear.

Also the tenant doesn't know if any of the notices or proceedings have happened before he moves in so he may miss some stages. Again he can still apply for the delay but it may be quite early in the tenancy.

One obvious question to to ask is why doesn't the landlord have consent to let? From threads here it's often that the landlord doesn't meet the lender's requirements in equity or amount of rent, or that the landlord can't afford the extra costs of getting consent (maybe a higher interest rate, maybe application fees). Is it a good idea to have a landlord where the let isn't financially viable? Will they be able to afford repairs? Will a landlord who breaks his mortgage terms when they do not suit him be the type to do the same with inconvenient terms in the tenancy agreement?

The guidance suggests how to find out if there is consent 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.

Before taking a tenancy I would still also recommend getting the land registry entry (four quid online) to check any information in there tallies with what you've been given. For example when I enquired about consent to let once I was told there was no mortgage, if I'd have known to check the land registry back then I would not have fallen for that line as it turned out there was a mortgage and not consent to let. Also as the recent discussion shows it's worth checking the person offering the tenancy is the property owner or you could end up a subtenant. If that happens the property owner would need to give permission or your security may be affected:
http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/renting_and_leasehold/sharing_and_subletting/subtenants

There are those who say don't bother checking as it doesn't give a guarantee all will be OK but I bet they still check their tenant's references even though that isn't a guarantee either. Doing what checks you can reduces the risk of problems be you a tenant checking the landlord or a landlord referencing the tenant.

tbs624

socrates wrote: »

Very very few - indeed almost no examples of people being turfed out over night

There are plenty of examples of Ts losing their home, often long before the supposed Fixed Term expiry, and many such Ts post of their experiences on here.

As has already been said in this thread ( who is it who doesn't "listen"?) the very *fact* that there are a pretty high number of tenants being affected by mortgage defaulting LLs who failed to have that mortgaged property under BTL/CTL led to the Mortgage Repossessions (Tenant Protection) Act 2010 being brought in.

I hope some day they will be in place so that we do not have to sit here and read you droning on about hypothetical situations

If people having a different view to your own distresses you so much Socrates then feel free not to read the thread.

As I said before, LLs who fail to have the right mortgage product/consents in place are quite simply screwing over both the Lender and the T.

Perhaps your own lets are under the radar, hence your spirited defence of the deceivers?

socrates

tbs624 wrote: »

There are plenty of examples of Ts losing their home, often long before the supposed Fixed Term expiry, and many such Ts post of their experiences on here.

As has already been said in this thread ( who is it who doesn't "listen"?) the very *fact* that there are a pretty high number of tenants being affected by mortgage defaulting LLs who failed to have that mortgaged property under BTL/CTL led to the Mortgage Repossessions (Tenant Protection) Act 2010 being brought in.

If people having a different view to your own distresses you so much Socrates then feel free not to read the thread.

As I said before, LLs who fail to have the right mortgage product/consents in place are quite simply screwing over both the Lender and the T.

Perhaps your own lets are under the radar, hence your spirited defence of the deceivers?

Do you always assume things?

Or do you base your arguments on fact?

So far the basis of your whole argument has fallen down regarding LR

That fails so you get personal

How many repossession hearings have you attended?

How many tenants get turfed out overnight?

There are not a high number of tenants being turfed out any quicker than if they were given notice to quit by their LL

There have been zero cases of insurance claims not being paid out because of lack of CTL

There are no lenders who have not lost more money through their own dirty dealings rather than LL's without CTL

And the list goes on and on.....

Keep cutting the cloth

Funny how none of you have commented or argued with the LR Rep - when Silvercar and I made similar points you argued our views were incorrect - now who is not listening - or should I say reading

tbs624

socrates wrote: »

Do you always assume things?

Or do you base your arguments on fact?

You now understand the importance of [typo edit: differentiating] between the two? If yes, please amend your own posts accordingly.

socrates wrote: »

So far the basis of your whole argument has fallen down regarding LR

My "whole argument" ? I suggest that you look back through my posts in this thread and read what they actually say rather than what you have assumed they say.

socrates wrote: »

That fails so you get personal

Don't be so tedious Socrates - you've taken it personally that others disagree with your view.

Socrates wrote:

How many tenants get turfed out overnight?

There are not a high number of tenants being turfed out any quicker than if they were given notice to quit by their LL

My bolding: I suggest that you read back through the Hansard reports plus info from Shelter, Crisis, CAB, IoH etc that [edit: preceded ] the introduction of Act.

You continue to ignore the *fact* that a significant no. of Ts whose tenancies are deemed to be "unauthorised" lose their homes prior to the FT expiry date. As you say you are a LL, you will (should) be aware that a LL can't boot a T out prior to the expiry of the FT ( and subsequent court order/bailiff enforcement if necessary)except in specific circs, so your assertion in bold above is incorrect. (Note too that an NTQ is not applicable to ASTs).

Much earlier in the thread you argued against the tenancy deposit regs, saying that they were merely a tool for the Govt to track down LLs who weren't fully declaring their rental income etc. That and your defence of LLs whose omissions on appropriate mortgage products put their tenant's homes at risk will naturally make people wonder whether you have a very personal basis for your objections.

Any T who has concerns about whether their LL is letting "under the radar", on whatever score, should follow the matter up

franklee

techcastoni wrote: »

The guy I have paid rent and deposit to says he is the landlord but he has also freely admitted that he has rented the property from the mortgage holder.

What I believe has happened is the mortgage holder has purchased the house with the intention to let it out (I have checked and he has consent to let from the bank) but the person he has let it out to (my supposed landlord) has sublet it to me and three other people which I believe is illegal.

Don't know if your are still about but Tessa has just done a blog post on subtenants and there are a few interesting comments as well:

What rights do subtenants have?
http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2012/08/22/what-rights-do-subtenants-have/

It is always worth checking the let is done with the permission of the property owner (as well as the lender). Or better still avoid a sub tenancy by making sure you are renting from the property owner! (I'd check at LR).