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

tbs624

sugarlily wrote: »

TBH many landlords are skint money savers like you and me who have houses stuck in negative equity but have to move for job reasons, and are therefore forced to let. If they have to go through the paperwork of notifying the bank, who might say no, they might get completely stuck, default, and lose their home.

They may also default despite an incoming T paying a hefty rental figure to them. Obviously the T has the minimum protection granted by recent legislation but ultimately they will lose their (rented) home

Many home "owners" continue to have a totally unrealistic price in their heads when it comes to selling up and become amateur LLs in the hope that someone else will pay the residential mortgage until house prices improve.

sugarlily wrote: »

They aren't going to run into trouble unless us tenants stop paying the rent, causing mtg payments to stop,

sugarlily wrote: »

and the bank to start investigating. At that point, yes, we might get evicted, either if the bank finds out or if the owner gets reposessed.

My bolding. Unfortunately, in many cases the hapless T has been paying their rent in full and on time but the LL's financial incontinence has meant that they (the LL) (a) fail to, in turn, make their mortgage payments on the rented property and (b) fail to properly deal with the T's deposit

tbs624

sugarlily wrote: »

People tend to have insurance for things such as boilers and other major repairs.

...and of course they fully declare to the relevant insurance providers that the former residential home is now in fact a tenanted property?

Incidentally, many well-managed tenanted properties are let without the sort of insurance cover you describe because the LLs act sensibly and have an appropriate contingency fund for R&R

sugarlily wrote: »

Perhaps we should be calling for the banks to be more flexible, rather than criticising people who have to move for work.

If a property is bought as a residential purchase for "owner" occupation then the lender has every right to insist that the "owner" seek out a different (yes, usually more costly) mortgage product or pay an additional premium on their current terms, should the "owner" wish to let the property out.

murrayfan_2

I think it's terrible that letting agents don't check this :eek:. We had huge problems with one house we rented a few years ago through a 'reputable' agent. After paying the sky high fees for having us credit-checked, referenced, etc, we turned up on moving-in day to find all manner of problems, including a dangerous broken pane of glass in the inside of the porch, and windows that wouldn't shut properly. I complained and was redirected to the landlord as he only had a contract with the agency for them to find tenants, the rest he was 'dealing with himself' (another thing never made clear to us). He told us straight up he couldn't afford any improvements. We were paying £695pcm for this rental home by the way.

Then letters began arriving for him. I forwarded them to his address (in a different county), until one day I became really worried that they were coming thick and fast, and looked very officious. I opened one (yes I know that's wrong) and found out that he was way in arrears with his mortgage payments !. I told the rental agency and they basically said it was none of their business! :mad:.

When we moved out I found that lots of our furniture had mould on the back or undersides because of the terrible condensation, caused by old aluminium framed windows. This had caused the (disgusting, very old) off white carpet to mark up in places. I shampooed the carpets but couldn't get the marks off. The landlord had the cheek to try and withold the £1,000 deposit because of this, despite the problems, the unfixed broken glass, and my damaged furniture (had to chuck one bookcase because of the mould). I eventually won the deposit back after a long nasty fight.

We were naive because we'd lived in Scotland where private landlords have to be registered, there seems to be less control here (England). I didn't know about the land registry thing at the time, wish I had, I definitely would've checked :cool:.

[Deleted User]

Most letting agents are shysters in it for quick money and waiting to rip you off. Quite a few have popped up in my area in the last few years - all scum.

And most of the properties on their books are like what murrayfan describes above, full of problems and not fit to live in. Owned by landlords that won't spend a penny on maintaining their properties.

MissMoneypenny

Paul_iow wrote: »

How would we go about telling his mortgage company, we know which company he has his mortgage with, and what would the reprocussions for him be? Bearing in mind the house has just been sold and it looks like he has been renting at least the past 18 months.

I just phone the lenders and ask for their mortgage fraud section. You will need the full name of the borrower, plus the address including the postcode, to make it easier for the lender. I just say that I suspect their borrower is letting out the property without their (the lenders) consent. Perhaps tell them too that their borrower has a buyer and that he has moved to Australia, so they can treat their investigation as urgent?

The lender will decide what reprocussions there will be for the borrower. i.e. they can add all back interest and fees onto his mortgage (shown as a 'charge' on the property). The solicitor acting for the seller, will deduct all the charges against the property and give the seller the remainder of the profit from the sale.

socrates

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I just phone the lenders and ask for their mortgage fraud section. You will need the full name of the borrower, plus the address including the postcode, to make it easier for the lender. I just say that I suspect their borrower is letting out the property without their (the lenders) consent. Perhaps tell them too that their borrower has a buyer and that he has moved to Australia, so they can treat their investigation as urgent?

The lender will decide what reprocussions there will be for the borrower. i.e. they can add all back interest and fees onto his mortgage (shown as a 'charge' on the property). The solicitor acting for the seller, will deduct all the charges against the property and give the seller the remainder of the profit from the sale.

Really??

You seriously sit there and call the lender?

Sounds like you work somewhere where you do this regularly - is this really a good use of your time?

If you have so much free time and dedication why not put it to positive use....

Thrugelmir

murrayfan wrote: »

(!. I told the rental agency and they basically said it was none of their business! :mad:.

It's not. Why would it be?

Is it any of yours?

tbs624

Thrugelmir wrote: »

It's not. Why would it be?

Is it any of yours?

murrayfan should of course see the LLs mortgage arrears as being relevant to him/her since lender repossession of the property will impact on the roof over his/her head.

If you accept that its right for a T's personal finances are to be trawled through, with the T paying the costs of the checks (and some), so that the likelihood of the T meeting his/her obligations under the tenancy agreement can be assessed, why would you then suggest that the financial incontinence of the LL is none of a T's business?

Listerbelle

franklee wrote: »

It's courteous to forward post for the first few months after someone moves out but if it's been going on for a longer while then I'd say dodgy. I can't see why the landlord should expect to use your home as a post box or why you would let her operate from your home. I'd put no longer living at this address on the envelopes and put back in the post of it's been longer than a few months since she last lived there.

Writing as a landlord, some organisations refuse to recognise postal addresses abroad. Royal Mail permits a forwarding address for two years, but after that you cannot renew.

This is a particularly troublesome scenario for individuals who are abroad temporarily mid-long term, such as PhD students and post-docs, or people caring for sick relatives located in another country.

It's also a right PITA for people who are forced to regularly relocate due to their employment, such as junior doctors. (All doctors who are not consultants are "junior doctors", some training programs are 9-10 years long.)

franklee

Listerbelle wrote: »

Writing as a landlord, some organisations refuse to recognise postal addresses abroad. Royal Mail permits a forwarding address for two years, but after that you cannot renew.

This is a particularly troublesome scenario for individuals who are abroad temporarily mid-long term, such as PhD students and post-docs, or people caring for sick relatives located in another country.

It's also a right PITA for people who are forced to regularly relocate due to their employment, such as junior doctors. (All doctors who are not consultants are "junior doctors", some training programs are 9-10 years long.)

As a landlord you should know that landlords have to provide the tenant with an address in England and wales for the serving of notices. This is an address at which letters can be sent to reach the landlord. Therefore they can also use that address for their post. I see no reason to go on using the tenant's home for any longer than it takes to gets addresses changed.

It's also risky for the landlord to leave his correspondence going to the rental address. For example there are tenants who use identify theft to run up debts in their landlord name. I would not regularly forward mail as how would I prove any debts run up using my home weren't done by me. In worst case a criminally minded tenant can steal the house (yes really have a read of the land registry information pages).

A landlord would be bonkers to leave his property and correspondence unattended for a year or two while abroad. At least he needs an address here and someone to manage the property locally. If he hasn't got friends or family to do it he can pay an agent.