Landlord wants our help to convince mortgage lenders he lives here

ukbilly

pinkshoes wrote: »

1. Play the LLs game, but try and gain from it i.e. tell him he can have a utility bill in his name, but only if HE pays the bill.

2. Have nothing to do with this. This also means that any letters with HIS name on should have "NOT AT THIS ADDRESS, RETURN TO SENDER" written on them, then put back in the post, and NOT forwarded to him. He can't write clauses like this in your contract!!

1. Out of the question. We are not going to risk getting into any trouble over this and a simple amount of research would reveal that the LL does not live here.

2. Our contract is a standard one used by the letting agent. It clearly states that we should forward any mail for the LL. Mostly this has amounted to reminders to pay the mortgage. I don't think the LL is very clued up about such things and he wouldn't have thought to have included such a clause had he drawn up the contract himself.

kunekune

PayDay wrote: »

I googled mortgage fraud deception and came up with lot of hits.

That's why it's better to get your law from a lawyer rather from google! Yes, there used to be an offence called obtaining by deception. But trust me, honest, there isn't any more! You may well find references to it on the internet, but (a) journalists don't always use very precise language when they are talking about criminal law, they're not lawyers after all, and (b) it can take a while for a case to come to court, so some people will have been charged under the old law because their crime was committed before the new one came into effect.

DVardysShadow

ILW wrote: »

The lender is being deprived of money as they normally charge a higher rate on a rental mortgage. Therefore fraud is being commited and he is asking the OP to aid and abet.

They are not actually losing any money to a 3rd party. The only basis for arguing deprivation is that the higher charge is one which the lender itself sets.

To me it is plainly, plainly a breach of a contract not to let, without a shadow of a doubt. I don't approve of it, for a moment. But I cannot see much grounds for shifting this on from breach of contract to fraud [provided the mortgage is being repaid] if the alleged loss is actually a higher charge being made by the alleged loser.

If we go down the route of calling this fraud, we are handing powers to powerful companies to turn breaches of contract into crimes. Please don't go there.

pinkshoes

ukbilly wrote: »

1. Out of the question. We are not going to risk getting into any trouble over this and a simple amount of research would reveal that the LL does not live here.

2. Our contract is a standard one used by the letting agent. It clearly states that we should forward any mail for the LL. Mostly this has amounted to reminders to pay the mortgage. I don't think the LL is very clued up about such things and he wouldn't have thought to have included such a clause had he drawn up the contract himself.

If you don't want to get into any trouble over this, then why are you forwarding the letters?

The LL is VERY clued up, and knows exactly what he's doing. He can't have the letters sent to his current address, as that would be admitting he's renting the property out!

Send the mortgage letters back to the mortgage company!

ukbilly

pinkshoes wrote: »

Send the mortgage letters back to the mortgage company!

Which would put me in breach of my contract and I'd rather not do that. I don't think it would be necessary, anyway. We think the lenders have contacted the LL specifically to ask if he lives at our address. He'll get no help from us and the truth will be out.

pinkshoes

ukbilly wrote: »

Which would put me in breach of my contract and I'd rather not do that. I don't think it would be necessary, anyway. We think the lenders have contacted the LL specifically to ask if he lives at our address. He'll get no help from us and the truth will be out.

A contract that isn't worth the paper it's written on if he doesn't have the lender's permission to let... (so only standard contract terms would apply i.e notice period, requirement for quiet enjoeyment etc...)

I would be looking for somewhere else to live.

franklee

DVardysShadow wrote: »

To me it is plainly, plainly a breach of a contract not to let, without a shadow of a doubt. I don't approve of it, for a moment. But I cannot see much grounds for shifting this on from breach of contract to fraud [provided the mortgage is being repaid] if the alleged loss is actually a higher charge being made by the alleged loser.

If we go down the route of calling this fraud, we are handing powers to powerful companies to turn breaches of contract into crimes. Please don't go there.

Did you read kunekune's post #57 ?

DVardysShadow

franklee wrote: »

Did you read kunekune's post #57 ?

Yes. Did you note "this is a bizarre offence in many ways"?

Did you read mine? It really is bizarre for this to be fraud if "alleged loss is actually a higher charge being made by the alleged loser" as distinct from "alleged loss being a result of a higher charge made by a 3rd party".

barnaby-bear

DVardysShadow wrote: »

They are not actually losing any money to a 3rd party. The only basis for arguing deprivation is that the higher charge is one which the lender itself sets.

To me it is plainly, plainly a breach of a contract not to let, without a shadow of a doubt. I don't approve of it, for a moment. But I cannot see much grounds for shifting this on from breach of contract to fraud [provided the mortgage is being repaid] if the alleged loss is actually a higher charge being made by the alleged loser.

If we go down the route of calling this fraud, we are handing powers to powerful companies to turn breaches of contract into crimes. Please don't go there.

On average BTLers get repossessed more than Owner occupiers - the higher charge is to cover the on average higher risk. The fraud is exposing the lender to that risk. The loss isn't the loss of the higher rate - but the average losses over all BTLers defaulting. Whether one particular BTLer meets the payments or intends to is irrelevent borrowing money on a single home you live in means you are less likely to default than someone who is risking having to cover the costs of two places.... it is fraud the loss is in the on average repossession / default costs.

ILW

DVardysShadow wrote: »

They are not actually losing any money to a 3rd party. The only basis for arguing deprivation is that the higher charge is one which the lender itself sets.

To me it is plainly, plainly a breach of a contract not to let, without a shadow of a doubt. I don't approve of it, for a moment. But I cannot see much grounds for shifting this on from breach of contract to fraud [provided the mortgage is being repaid] if the alleged loss is actually a higher charge being made by the alleged loser.

If we go down the route of calling this fraud, we are handing powers to powerful companies to turn breaches of contract into crimes. Please don't go there.

I would suggest they are losing money. It could be read as they offer a reduced rate if you agree not to let. By taking that option and then letting, it could be considered fraud.