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

MissMoneypenny

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.

If you look at the first post on this thread, it explains about "buy to let" and "consent to let".

If you are trying to let a property, then just show the tenant that you have proof of Buy to Let or Consent to Let; as this will stop the tenant having to pay the £4 to Land Registry or ask the landlord to supply proof of Consent to Let. Letting a property is a business; even if a landlord is an accidential landord; so get everything in place for the business deal (letting to a tenant). It's in the tenant financial interest to see this proof, so provide it.

Of course, if landlords haven't received permission from their mortgage lender, then I'm sure that they/the letting agent, will come up with a lot of excuses and waffle, when asked for this proof by the tenant..

socrates

I have looked at the first few pages of this thread - be it that they are now 4 years old and the fact still remains -what you were told my Silvercar and myself about LR and was recently confirmed by the LR Rep is that the address of your LL on LR tells you NOTHING AT ALL

If your colleague looks back he/she will see that all my properties are on BTL mortgages so their allegation/allegations are also without premise and there is still no official document or requirement to prove one has CTL - so all in all.........

MissMoneypenny

socrates wrote: »

I have looked at the first few pages of this thread - be it that they are now 4 years old and the fact still remains -what you were told my Silvercar and myself about LR and was recently confirmed by the LR Rep is that the address of your LL on LR tells you NOTHING AT ALL.

There is no need to shout. You seem to be going over and over the same thing, in what seems to be an effort to stop tenants' checking their landlord has permission from their mortgage lender, to let the property.

You are making untue claims, that tenants who rent from a landlord without the lenders permission, have the same rights as those who have a lender that has given permission; they don't. This has been explained to you over and over again, at great length. Silvercar was one of the worst offenders on this site, for telling people to let their property out, without consent from their mortgage lender.

socrates wrote: »

If your colleague looks back he/she will see that all my properties are on BTL mortgages so their allegation/allegations are also without premise and there is still no official document or requirement to prove one has CTL - so all in all.........

We can't see that your properties have buy to lets, we can only see what you claim to have. We can also see lots of posts from you claiming that it doesn't matter if a tenant rents from a landord who does or doesn't have permission from their mortgage lender, despite the facts that it clearly does affect the tenants rights and quaility of life. People can make of that, what they will.

Fortunately (for tenants; and those landlords who have permission to let) there are lots of warnings on the internet now on sites like this one, for tenants to protect themselves by ensuring the landlord has permission to let the property.

socrates

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

There is no need to shout. You seem to be going over and over the same thing, in what seems to be an effort to stop tenants' checking their landlord has permission from their mortgage lender, to let the property.

You are making untue claims, that tenants who rent from a landlord without the lenders permission, have the same rights as those who have a lender that has given permission; they don't. This has been explained to you over and over again, at great length. Silvercar was one of the worst offenders on this site, for telling people to let their property out, without consent from their mortgage lender.



We can't see that your properties have buy to lets, we can only see what you claim to have. We can also see lots of posts from you claiming that it doesn't matter if a tenant rents from a landord who does or doesn't have permission from their mortgage lender, despite the facts that it clearly does affect the tenants rights and quaility of life. People can make of that, what they will.

Fortunately (for tenants; and those landlords who have permission to let) there are lots of warnings on the internet now on sites like this one, for tenants to protect themselves by ensuring the landlord has permission to let the property.

And you kept writing on here over and over again that checking LR proved something about CTL and you were proved 100% wrong by the LR Rep - funny how you have not commented on that

You also scare mongered on many occasions about Insurance Companies not paying out claims where there was no CTL - have you provided one example where this is the case?

Until there is legislation in place most of what you say on here is futile - and you are working on the premise of ifs buts and maybes

Silvercar I am sure will answer for herself

franklee

Perhaps some landlords without consent to let are worried that a disgruntled tenant will find out who their mortgage lender is (by checking the land registry) and write into the lender giving details of the unauthorised tenancy. This is a fair worry.

Also for some reason I don't grasp it seems some landlords do not wish the tenant to have their address. Agents often do not want the tenant to contact the landlord directly to complain about the agent. A tenant can write to the rent collector or to the address for service of notices and ask for the landlord's name and address but getting that enforced is tricky. Therefore a quick look at the land registry is worthwhile as it may deliver an address that on further checking (e.g. on 192.com or the like) can be confirmed as the landlord's address. Even if not the landlord's own home the land registry address is meant to be a postbox to the property owner so a tenant see if a letter they send there gets any results.

Also if a property has been purchased for letting then I doubt most landlords would put that address at the land registry as they don't want important letters arriving on their tenant's doormat. However on letting a prior home it seems many landlords "forget" to update the land registry. So if the owners address is the rental then it is worth asking why as an accidental landlord is the type who may not have consent to let. The agent's photographs can also give a clue to an accidental landlord's former home, e.g. are there pictures on the walls etc., was the property recently up for sale etc.

Not to mention the sub letting issue which also affects a tenant's security of tenure so they need to check who the property owner is and check he/she is their landlord.

Do we see tenants saying giving employer references isn't fool proof and isn't a legal requirement so landlords should not bother? If a tenant tried that they would not be considered for the tenancy. When you think about it tenants hand over reams of personal information and a lot of money to get referenced by a landlord. However all too often they ask nothing about the landlord beyond that he has the keys to the property (which anyone can get). I am shocked when tenants post on here the only way they can communicate with their landlord is by phone or text!

Until the industry is set up for tenants to reference landlords tenants have to do the best they can asking questions and trying to piece together what information they can get. In doing this the land registry is useful and worth four quid but as was established and repeated by at least page two of this thread it does not on it's own answer the consent to let question but is does provide indicators to follow up on.

Finally if the nay saying landlords were right at the start of this thread why did the government bring in legislation in 2010 to help with the issue?

socrates

We were right at the beginning of the thread in that we said that LR proves nothing

The legislation that was brought in was not merely to protect tenants whose LL never had CTL it was for any tenant whose LL's property was being repossessed and meant that they were not turfed out overnight and this was as a direct result of increased repos due to the change in the stability of the economy and peoples inability to service their mortgages - some of these LL's had CTL Libor linked mortgages and had their properties repossessed on the back of false accounting by a cartel of greedy bankers - who decide these things between themselves in the comfort of the golf club

But as always you cut the cloth to fit

franklee

socrates wrote: »

The legislation that was brought in was not merely to protect tenants whose LL never had CTL it was for any tenant whose LL's property was being repossessed and meant that they were not turfed out overnight and this was as a direct result of increased repos due to the change in the stability of the economy and peoples inability to service their mortgages

Thanks that proves you've not bothered reading about the Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010 because it is specifically to address unauthorised tenancies. From the guidance, that I've linked to repeatedly:

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

Two extracts:

4.1 What does the Act achieve?

The Act tackles the problem of tenants being evicted at short notice when their home is repossessed by their landlord's lender. The Act protects those tenants whose tenancies are not binding on their landlord’s lender, (defined by the Act as ‘unauthorised tenants’) by giving them the opportunity to request a delay of the date of possession of up to two months. The unauthorised tenant may make a request to the lender and if the lender refuses or does not respond to the request, the tenant can make an application to the court. Applications can be made at the initial possession hearing, or, if that opportunity is missed, when the lender seeks to enforce a possession order.

1.3 Meaning of ‘unauthorised tenants’/‘unauthorised tenancy’

The term ‘unauthorised tenants’ refers to those tenants who are renting a mortgaged residential property from a landlord who has let the property without the knowledge or consent of the lender, and in contravention of the mortgage agreement. Such a tenancy is known as an ‘unauthorised tenancy’ because the tenancy agreement is unenforceable against the lender. When letting a mortgaged property on which there is a residential mortgage, the borrower should obtain consent from their lender. Tenants whose landlord has such consent are ‘authorised’ tenants and this legislation does not apply to them as they have comparable existing rights.

Is that clear enough now?

I suggest all tenants read the Shelter link

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/repossession/repossession_by_a_landlords_lender

and the guidance on the earlier link and do not let rouge landlords or those with vested interests in cheating to put you off looking after your own security.

socrates

I thank you for setting me straight - at least I can admit I am wrong

Yet we were still right about the LR point either way you want to look at it

I also appreciate your sarcastic thanks

rlongson

Okay so I'm a bit of a newbie here! Basically, I've just renewed my tenancy for another year. We haven't been very happy here but can't afford a deposit to go to a new place at the moment. There is issues we have (long and complicated but basically, our front door where we receive mail and let our visitors in has been blocked off by a coded lock going up on the big wooden gate which allows access to our property.) We can access our front door, so can the postman as he has the code, but nobody else can unless we inform them of it.

If we had known this was going to happen we wouldn't have continued for another year. I spoke to Shelter and our estate agent and basically, nobody will do anything.

To end our tenancy agreement we need to firstly apply and ask if we'd be "allowed" to leave early, pay £300 and something for ending early, and also continue to pay rent until the property has new tenants.

We have not had a new gas safety check or certificate since the day we moved in; meaning it's 1-2 months late which can get the landlord into trouble.

I've also downloaded the LR document for our property and the landlords address is at the property we are renting... So, I'm assuming he doesn't have permission to let either.

We are kinda hoping this COULD be our "get out of jail free" as we hate it here. How do I go about finding out for sure? What action should I be taking?

Can someone just explain all this too me in simple terms? I find it all quite confusing. Sorry of this has already been discussed but the thread is far too long to read through. I now have a very numb bum!


Anyway, thanks in advance. Hoping some of you can help me X

franklee

Hi rlongson,

Unfortunately you are bound to the tenancy agreement for the whole year regardless of if the landlord has consent to let or not.

A lack of consent to let means the tenancy is till binding on the tenant but is not binding on the landlord's lender. This leaves the tenant at a disadvantage should the lender wish to repossess.

To find out if there is consent or not I would write to the person managing the property, letting agent or landlord, at the address given for the service of notices probably in your tenancy agreement. If that's the agent I would ask what proof they saw to satisfy themselves there is consent to let. If it's the landlord I'd ask for written proof. The guidance to the Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010 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.".

Meanwhile be sure to open and read carefully all letters addressed to the occupier or the like.

Is your landlord an accidental landlord, that is someone who didn't plan to become a landlord but say failed to sell his home so let it out? If your landlord used to live at the property then he would have had a residential mortgage back then and may not have got consent to let or switch to a BTL product. You can look in the land registry document you got to see if there is a mortgage and who the lender is. Do letters from a lender addressed to your landlord come to your home? If so that's not a good sign. Have you checked to see if your landlord has postal redirection in place (by sending a letter addressed to him to your home and see if it gets back to you or not), if there is you would not see the lender's letters.

If it's an agent managing the property and they don't answer the consent to let question satisfactorily you could complain to ARLA if they are ARLA members.

I'd put a request for a gas safety check into the letter as well with a reminder when it was last done. You can go to the tenancy relations officer at your local council for help if the inspection isn't forthcoming soon.

Also have you checked your deposit is protected in a scheme by looking it up with the scheme?

No get out of jail free card I'm afraid although if you complain about the above issues the landlord may want rid of you (in which case you would need to get his agreement you can leave and the terms in writing) or he may put them right. If you think the agent is being obstructive you could write or talk directly to your landlord. Have you discussed the gate issue directly with your landlord, has he explained why it was done?

The above is all presuming you are a tenant so that the landlord doesn't live there with you and that your landlord owns the property so it isn't a sublet (is the owner on the land registry document your landlord).