Renting my property in secret

Ian_W

Jackboy29 wrote:

I was advised by a large mortgage broker that it's not even necessary to tell the mortgage company and it's certainly not illegal, merely a civil dispute between you and the lender.

Was that when they were trying to sell you a mortgage? If the mortgage exists and you move out and let then it is a civil contractual dispute. If you apply for a new residential mortgage without the intention of living there OR re-mortgage on to another residential mortgage whilst letting out the premises that it is almost certainly FRAUD, aka obtaining property or a pecuniary advantage by deception.

Lots of stories in the financial press lately about arrests for mortgage frauds, almost without exception a mortgage broker is one of those sampling porridge!

Jackboy29

Ian_W wrote: »

Was that when they were trying to sell you a mortgage?

Yes, i wanted a residential mortgage but thought i may want to let it out in the future as me and my brother planned to live together initially but my long term girlfriend was also buying a house.

If you get a residential mortgage with the intention of letting it out from the start then that is certainly fraud.

Fire_Fox

Jackboy29 wrote: »

I've tried to get clarification on the implications myself but don't seem to have reached a definitive conclusion yet. From my research it's a civil matter between you and the lender. I dont see why landlords insurance would be invalid as this has nothing to do with whether you are having a dispute with your lender or not. You can request a different correspondance address quite legitimately. My lender accused me of letting out my property as i wanted a different correspondance address but as i only planned to live at the property for a few years and my driving licence and all my other bills were at my parents house still i wanted my bank statements to have the same addresss too (i.e. proof of id for credit in shops etc). They accepted this and didn't contact me again.

You may be breaking the terms and conditions of your current account by not providing them with your correct residential address. It's also a requirement for your driver's license to be updated with your correct postal address, tho I have to say I don't know what the penalty is (if any). Insurance companies will use any excuse to get out of paying out - it's probably in the small print that you need to inform them if the property is let, vacant or not your primary address.

Jackboy29

Fire_Fox wrote: »

You may be breaking the terms and conditions of your current account by not providing them with your correct residential address. It's also a requirement for your driver's license to be updated with your correct postal address, tho I have to say I don't know what the penalty is (if any). Insurance companies will use any excuse to get out of paying out - it's probably in the small print that you need to inform them if the property is let, vacant or not your primary address.

I doubt you would be breaking any T&C of a current account. What else would be the purpose of a correspondance address which the lender has agreed to?

You definiately have to tell an insurance company if the property is let, vacant etc as this is information they need to provide you with a relevant quote. The point is a civil dispute with your lender regarding consent to let should be irrelevant to your policy cover.

Debt_Free_Dreamer

bingibongi wrote: »

& if the house ceases to be your main residence you may have to pay CGT when you sell it.

You can take into account the time you lived in the property, so it is not CGT on the whole amount, just because you are renting it out at the time you come to sell. You can calculate the real CGT during its rental period.