Stuck between a rock and a hard place.....

scrummy_mummy_2

I think you'll find that omitting the fact that the lender doesn't know that the property, in which he has a majority fiancial interest, is rented out is an omission of material fact....a fact that affects the risk thus, if the lender does not know that a property is being let out, and the insurer is not told that there is no permission, the insurance is invalid....the same as if I take out holiday ski insurance and (forget/omit) to tell the insurer that I have had a knee operation. If I damage my knee ski-ing and did not tell them it had already sustained an injury, the insurance will not pay out.

desperate4help_2

Ok good point - however I believe I am back at square 1!!

My head hurts! Its time time to open the wine and think things through - thank you all so much for your help :0)

poppysarah

Are you actually in negative equity? Have you been told this or are you just assuming?


They couldn't refuse you a lodger - so if you were just renting a room away during the week, technically it'd be a lodger. Insurance still needs to know though - but it might help you out...

scrummy_mummy_2

desperate4help wrote: »

Not really keen to highlight myself more than I have already done to HSBOS, especially if it wouldnt resolve itself quickly.

Have to say theres no way I would rent without insurance - that would be madness and really unfair to any potential tenant.

What would be really unfair is getting your tenants evicted because you have chosen to go against the lender and the fact that they will not grant you authority to let without transferring to a BTL mortgage because of your negative equity. They are left with few rights and the lender can/will call your mortgage in.

Failing to comply with mortgage covenants will invalidate your insurance.

Most letting agents will not agree to take on a property unless they physically see written permission from the lender that their permission to let has been agreed.

Why would speaking to the ombudsman alert HBOS any more anyway....do you think they have a hotline direct to the desk of the MD of HBOS????
They are there to help consumers, not ring the banks and snitch!

Good luck with renting without your lender's permission and getting any claims paid without disclosing material facts anyway....it's hard enough trying to get them to pay out when all the ducks are in a row!...

desperate4help_2

Ok am out - just in a difficult position and after advice not sarcasm. Have made no decisions yet, am not on the make just trying to keep head above water here.

silvercar

They are left with few rights and the lender can/will call your mortgage in.

Can you find a source for that? I've never heard of a case where a lender has called a residential mortgage in when the mortgage payments have all been made on time and there are no arrears.

silvercar

scrummy_mummy wrote: »

I think you'll find that omitting the fact that the lender doesn't know that the property, in which he has a majority fiancial interest, is rented out is an omission of material fact....a fact that affects the risk thus, if the lender does not know that a property is being let out, and the insurer is not told that there is no permission, the insurance is invalid....the same as if I take out holiday ski insurance and (forget/omit) to tell the insurer that I have had a knee operation. If I damage my knee ski-ing and did not tell them it had already sustained an injury, the insurance will not pay out.

Your ski-ing analogy doesn't transfer over, unless you can explain why, for example, a tenant is more likely to have a house fire because the landlord didn't obtain consent to let.

silvercar

scrummy_mummy wrote:

Most letting agents will not agree to take on a property unless they physically see written permission from the lender that their permission to let has been agreed.

Letting agents should ask and most do; verbal or written confirmation is usually required, they don't require proof as lenders don't over proof. Sure you could show your mortgage offer etc but a lot of landlords are reluctant to do that as it reveals too much information.

bluejake

silvercar wrote: »

Your ski-ing analogy doesn't transfer over, unless you can explain why, for example, a tenant is more likely to have a house fire because the landlord didn't obtain consent to let.

An Insurer may well take the view that a situation where everything is not entirely legal and above board and some deception is being used is a higher risk than one where everything is proper and legal.

They may very well use that as a reason not to pay out any claim. To continue the skiiing analogy, they may not pay out because you failed to declare an existing medical condition which has no bearing on your skiing accident. I saw a guy on television who had estimated his height slightly incorrectly and this was used to refuse an insurance pay out which was nothing whatever to do with his height. They will exploit mistakes to refuse a claim, dishonesty is easy peasy. Sure they'll take your money....paying out is where the problem will be.

socrates

Any way you look at this its a tough one