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

franklee

TJ27 wrote: »

Yup. Or what is he says, "Yes, of course I have." Is he lying?

The only way to find out is to ask him for some sort of document from his lender which confirms the situation. And actually, even that could be forged without too much trouble.

I suppose if he said, "I don't" then you could write to his lender and tell them. They might then want to get in touch with him. I've known one case where the lender asked for their money back in such a situation.

Come to think of it you could write to the lender anyway, whatever his answer. Then if he's not above board they'll probably contact him.

I really don't know why this is being made out to be so difficult. Just ask to see a letter from the lender. That would sort the majority of cases. If the landlord is prepared to forge a letter then I'm afraid the tenant will have saddled themselves with a bad landlord but I do not think the majority of landlord would be prepared to go that far, they would probably just decline to show consent. The lie I was told was that there was no mortgage, as if. Course I did email the lender and they emailed back a thanks they would look into it. Obviously I was not party to what if anything happened.

Premier_2

franklee wrote: »

...If the landlord purchased the property as a BTL then he will be living elsewhere and thus his address will not be that of the property to be rented out...

There is no obligation on a LL to let out a property which has been purchased with a BTL mortgage, just an ongoing right to let it out if he so wishes.:)

franklee

TJ27 wrote: »

Because this would have to be done before the tenancy was signed. A LL might then think, "Flipping heck, this prospective tenant is keen to check me out. It seems to me that he/she might be a bit of a nuisance. I'm not so sure that I really want him/her as my tenant."

Well I do see the viewing as an interview process where landlord and tenant decide if they are suited. So that cuts both ways. If the tenant asks nicely with reasoning I'm sure a decent landlord would understand especially now when there are so many repossessions in the news.

silvercar

Premier wrote: »

There is no obligation on a LL to let out a property which has been purchased with a BTL mortgage, just an ongoing right to let it out if he so wishes.:)

If the landlord obtained a BTL mortgage, the mortgage would have been agreed on the basis of the rental income the property generates, rather than the landlords income. The landlord can't actually live in it himself without consent from the lender. This would be fraud in the opposite to usual sense - the applicant having obtained a mortgage based on rental income because he doesn;t hae the salary to justify the mortgage in the usual way.

Premier_2

Look this is all very simple.

Any decent LL with permission to let from their will provide notice to that effect. This is because it's a term of the loan as such notice is required for the lender to gain possession under Schedule 2, Ground 2 of the HA 1988.
Of course this doesn't prevent a LL issuing a false notice to this effect even if the LL has no consent, but chances are he wont.

If the LL doesn't provide such notice, you need to ask youself what other failures he's making, including possibly not having any consent to let.
That assumes there is a loan secured on the property in the first place, but there usually is.

Premier_2

silvercar wrote: »

If the landlord obtained a BTL mortgage, the mortgage would have been agreed on the basis of the rental income the property generates, rather than the landlords income. The landlord can't actually live in it himself without consent from the lender. This would be fraud in the opposite to usual sense - the applicant having obtained a mortgage based on rental income because he doesn;t hae the salary to justify the mortgage in the usual way.

Oh yes he can!

There is nothing in any BTL mortgage loan agreement that I've seen that prohibits the LL living there. There is no requirement to tell the lender. There is no fraud in this instance.

silvercar

Bottom line in the event of repossession:

Consent to let/ BTL

Tenancy is acknowledged. Tenant can remain til shortest of end of fixed term/ break clause with prescribed notice/ 2 months notice for periodic tenancies.

No consent for tenant occupation

Tenancy unacknowledged. Tenant could go to court at time of repo hearing and plead case to judge. Judge likely to grant 7 or 14 days, sometimes even 28 days.

MiserlyMartin

franklee wrote: »

If the property was the landlord's former home and so he has a residential mortgage and has consent to let from the lender then logic says he will have informed the lender of his new address.

Not necessarily. He may have a residential mortgage, did not inform the lender of his intentions to rent out and simply just redirected all post to his actual real address.

silvercar

Premier wrote: »

Oh yes he can!

There is nothing in any BTL mortgage loan agreement that I've seen that prohibits the LL living there. There is no requirement to tell the lender. There is no fraud in this instance.

Fraudulent application:

LL: give me a mortgage as I'll have rental income of XX to pay mortgage.

LL moves in straight away so no rental income.

silvercar

To add to the confusion, the landlord could have consent to let and notified the lender of his new address. He may not have amended the title deeds held at land registry.