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

Premier_2

silvercar wrote: »

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.

Not fraudlent because what actually happens is:

LL: give me a mortgage with additional ongoing right to let out. Property is suggested as being capable of generating rental income of XX if let. Whether it does or does not acheive that rental yield, owner will be responsible to pay mortgage.

LL moves in straight away. As long as mortgage is paid, lender doesn't care whether property is let or not. No requirement to inform lender whether property is let or not as it has the right, but not the obligation, to be let.

Edit: Not all BTL mortgages were based 100% on anticipated rental income

silvercar

No requirement to inform lender whether property is let or not as it has the right, but not the obligation, to be let.

But does the landlord have the right to occupy?

Premier_2

silvercar wrote: »

But does the landlord have the right to occupy?

Better for the property to be occupied than not occupied, else the insurance may not be valid, and it'll probably quickly fall into dis-repair, so lowering its value.

An owner is better placed to pay the mortgage if he doesn't have to pay rent or mortgage on another place to reside.

For that reason, I doubt you'll find any mortgage prohibits the owner of that residential property from actually living in it. I've certainly never seen one.

silvercar

Edit: Not all BTL mortgages were based 100% on anticipated rental income;)

I know, some were based on "Give me this mortgage or I'll take the firms business accounts elsewhere.":p

franklee

Premier wrote: »

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.

Yes of course it's simple, and I agree. If the landlord refuses to show consent then that tells the tenant something about what the landlord is like, possibly not someone to trust the roof over ones head to in these credit crunch times.

DawnW

franklee wrote: »

Yes of course it's simple, and I agree. If the landlord refuses to show consent then that tells the tenant something about what the landlord is like, possibly not someone to trust the roof over ones head to in these credit crunch times.

There are two sides to this though - I have a (small) BTL mortgage on the property I let out (somewhat unwillingly to be honest - I have a social conscience, and do not like to see a nice house empty due to my unusual circumstances at the moment). I guess if my tenants demanded to see proof of this, I MAY be prepared to provide it. However, to be honest, I don't really care that much if they choose to stay or go. It doesn't impact at all on my ability to pay my mortgage. I have never yet relied on anyone else to pay my bills, and never will. That depends on what I and my husband earn, and nothing else. I do not consider it anyone else's responsibility. If they seriously defaulted on the rent (we have had previous late payment issues, which seem to have been resolved amicably), I would use the legal route to evict them, but the mortgage would still be paid.

This situation MAY be to the tenants advantage - if they just let it be without hassling me unduly for proof of whatever to let etc, it will just carry on, I suppose, as I am too lazy/ busy to do anything else, as long as they pay their rent reasonably that is (and as stated above there have been previous issues with this, which I have been pretty lenient with).

And, I will not raise, or lower the rent either. They understand that they can stay in the property until such time as I need it back to live in myself, or they want to move elsewhere, as long as they continue to pay the rent. If market rents go down, they can give notice and go elsewhere, with my blessing, and a reference.

And my property is very well maintained. If they have a problem (and are prepared to be in to let my tradespeople in if appropriate - they aren't aways:eek: I will always get it sorted out within a week. I acknowledge that I may be in a privileged position. However, this may serve to show that 'landlords' are at least as varied as a group as 'tenants'.

TJ27

franklee wrote: »

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,

Well fair enough, for a LL to forge a document would be relatively rare. Well I think so anyway. Perhaps I just can't spot forged letters. However, I have spotted quite a lot of falsified gas and electrical safety certificates when I've asked for them. And I know that landlords lie to me almost routinely.

The latest incident was when a landlady had failed to meet me at her property, giving the excuse that she had broken her leg. What she didn't know was that she lives in the same street as me and I see her walking her dog past my house every day. She was speechless when I very sympathetically asked if she was in pain running around the reservoir with her black labrador that morning.

franklee

DawnW wrote: »

There are two sides to this though - I have a (small) BTL mortgage on the property I let out (somewhat unwillingly to be honest - I have a social conscience, and do not like to see a nice house empty due to my unusual circumstances at the moment). I guess if my tenants demanded to see proof of this, I MAY be prepared to provide it. However, to be honest, I don't really care that much if they choose to stay or go. It doesn't impact at all on my ability to pay my mortgage. I have never yet relied on anyone else to pay my bills, and never will. That depends on what I and my husband earn, and nothing else. I do not consider it anyone else's responsibility. If they seriously defaulted on the rent (we have had previous late payment issues, which seem to have been resolved amicably), I would use the legal route to evict them, but the mortgage would still be paid.

This situation MAY be to the tenants advantage - if they just let it be without hassling me unduly for proof of whatever to let etc, it will just carry on, I suppose, as I am too lazy/ busy to do anything else, as long as they pay their rent reasonably that is (and as stated above there have been previous issues with this, which I have been pretty lenient with).

And, I will not raise, or lower the rent either. They understand that they can stay in the property until such time as I need it back to live in myself, or they want to move elsewhere, as long as they continue to pay the rent. If market rents go down, they can give notice and go elsewhere, with my blessing, and a reference.

And my property is very well maintained. If they have a problem (and are prepared to be in to let my tradespeople in if appropriate - they aren't aways:eek: I will always get it sorted out within a week. I acknowledge that I may be in a privileged position. However, this may serve to show that 'landlords' are at least as varied as a group as 'tenants'.

I don't think a tenant should DEMAND, it's a polite request. If the landlord has nothing to hide then they could easliy chose to comply with the request.

If a landlord hasn't got consent to let then chances are that's because they can't afford the extra charges that brings. This could in turn mean a lack of repairs and everything done on a shoestring, not to mention the tenant could be turfed out without notice.

As a tenant I'm looking for a landlord with a professional attitude. Any sign of funny business or lack of cash flow and I'll happily give that property a miss.

Consent to let really is such a simple thing to ask that I fail to see why so many landlords seem to object. All it gives away is a landlord's name, address and mortgage lender most of which is available at the land registry anyway, except prehaps address. Name and address would in any case be available to the tenant before they hand the first tranche of cash over. I can see landlords would not want to hand that out to all viewers but they could agree to hand it over at the time the first deposit is put down by which point I'd want to know the landlord's name and address and proof of ID anyway just as the landlord would want and get the same from me.

There are many landlords or potential landlords mentioned on here who cannot really afford to let their property out. One poster recently can only cover the mortgage for ONE MONTH, that's how close some are to going under!

An example is kazmc here who will probably be wiped out by her first void or major repair:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=17585447&postcount=10
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=17472265&postcount=8
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1402191
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=17476967&postcount=22

And I'm sure we've all seen plenty of help my landlord is getting reposessed threads recently.

silvercar

Consent to let really is such a simple thing to ask that I fail to see why so many landlords seem to object. All it gives away is a landlord's name, address and mortgage lender most of which is available at the land registry anyway, except prehaps address. Name and address would in any case be available to the tenant before they hand the first tranche of cash over.

I agree. Though I would not be prepared as a LL to give tenants any detail of the mortgage eg amount, interest rate etc or the mortgage account number (to prevent identity theft). I doubt I have a single piece of paper from the lender that confirms enough details to satisfy a diligent tenant without revealing private information. I did ask my lender if they produce a form that would confirm BTL mortgage status with just the property address and the LL address; they don't.

franklee

silvercar wrote: »

I agree. Though I would not be prepared as a LL to give tenants any detail of the mortgage eg amount, interest rate etc or the mortgage account number (to prevent identity theft). I doubt I have a single piece of paper from the lender that confirms enough details to satisfy a diligent tenant without revealing private information. I did ask my lender if they produce a form that would confirm BTL mortgage status with just the property address and the LL address; they don't.

But a mortgage statement or letter with interest rates would not address the issue of consent to let, therefore there is no point in showing that to a tenant and I can quite see why you would not want to.

But why ask the lender for a form? What's wrong with a letter in headed paper from the lender saying Dear silvercar I can confirm that as of X date you have consent to let 1 Arcadia Avenue? If you write and ask them for a simple letter I am sure they would comply. It really doesn't need to be a form. If the letter came back with an account number on it you could always black or cut that tiny bit out.