Tenant evicted when landlord is repossessed

roger196

This is my draft submission to the consultative document issued by the Dept for Communities and Local Govt on tenants being evicted with no notice as the landlord did not have a BTL mortgage. The first the tenant knows about the repossession is when the bailiffs turn up on the doorstep to evict. All comments welcome.

Civil or Criminal
If the landlord did not have a BTL ( buy-to-let) mortgage, then the landlord falsely pretended to the tenant that he was able to grant a 6 month AST giving the tenant peaceful enjoyment of the property for six months. Thus the rent was obtained by false representation. This is a criminal matter under S.2 of the Fraud Act 2006. Fraud by false representation occurs when a person dishonestly makes a false representation (express or implied), to make a gain for himself or to cause loss to another (e.g. the loss of the tenancy)
The bank may then be in possession of the tenant’s money (if the rent was used to pay the mortgage) falsely obtained and that it should be returned to the tenant under S.240 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Administration Costs
Legislation and codes of practice need to be self-enforcing to minimize administration costs. The proposed changes to the tenancy agreement should reduce the number of unauthorized tenancies starting. The proposed changes to repossession hearings should deal with existing unauthorized tenancies.

Why do unauthorized tenancies occur?
As a bank charges a higher arrangement fee and a higher rate of interest, the landlord will pretend the property is for their own occupation. These higher fees reflect the greater risk that BTL represents and a desire to share in the profits from renting. A claim for owner occupation will also reduce / eliminate capital gains tax on ultimate sale of the property. Also the rental income is less likely to be declared to the tax authorities.

Responsibility of Lender
To what extent is the lender complicit? Did they make any attempt to confirm that the landlord was living at the address which he claimed as buying for his own residential use? What address was used for correspondence. Did the purchaser own a number of properties?
I do not think the lender should be required to make extensive searches, but simple audit enquiries from readily available material e.g. voters lists, should be expected every couple of years. These are necessary for the protection of any asset which appears in company’s financial statements i.e. does the asset exist and at what value.

Are repossessions necessary?
Repossessions are necessary to allow house prices to fall to an affordable level where tenants can buy their own home. They also allow the correct functioning of the housing market. Without repossessions there is no moral hazard for the landlord. An innocent tenant is the victim of a crime and should see the same level of protection as other tenants. The present problem has arisen as the spat between the landlord and the bank is seen as a civil matter ignoring the tenant.
Tenant to be entitled to recover money obtained fraudulently from bank as the rent will / should have been used to pay the mortgage.



Changes to Tenancy Agreement
In the same way that a tenant has to disclose much personal and financial information to pass a landlord’s credit check, so a landlord should provide information as to his authority to let the property. This is a justifiable question as the validity of the AST depends on it. It is PROPOSED that the landlord is required to state in tenancy agreement that he has a BTL mortgage, that he authorizes the bank to disclose to the tenant when mortgage goes into arrears. If this happens, the tenancy agreement authorizes the tenant to pay all rent direct to the bank.

Privacy of Post
If the landlord's post is coming to the tenant’s property, the chances are that the landlord is pretending he is living there as his principal private residence. It is PROPOSED that the tenant has the right to open mail addressed to landlord one month after tenancy starts. There has to be a balance between the landlord’s right to privacy for his mail and the protection of the tenant against fraud. This will allow tenant to find out if things are going wrong. The land registry entry can then be inspected for the name of the borrower.

Direction to judges
Judges should be directed to ensure that the tenant gets a fair hearing and be obliged to consider a restitution order under S.240 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. This section allows the authority to recover in court property or cash obtained through unlawful conduct (whether his own conduct or another's), and whether or not any proceedings have been brought for the offence.


At present the first the tenant learns about the repossession order is when the bailiffs turn up at his door to evict him. Notifications of repossession hearings should be sent not only to the owner (marked “do not re-direct” to prevent landlord using the redirection service to hide his true address.) but also to the occupier of the property. This notice could also serve as a 2 month notice of termination of the tenancy (once the first 6 months had expired). S21 of the Housing Act 1988 could be amended if necessary.

European Convention of Human Rights
The tenant has an AST, although unlawfully granted, which is a form of property. It can be argued that the repossession order is ultra vires being an arbitrary seizure of property contrary to Article 1 of ECHR (European Convention of Human Rights) Article 1 states that every natural person...is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law...... Thus it could be argued that the AST is binding on the lender.
It can also be argued that the repossession order is a result of an unfair court hearing in breach of Article 6. The tenant is entitled in pursuit of his civil rights under Article 6 to a fair hearing. This requires that he has adequate notice (say 6 weeks) and that he is actually heard. The threat of large court costs is often used by the banks to deter the tenant from appearing. Given the disparity of financial strength, this is deprivation of a right to a fair hearing. The victim of a crime should be allowed to speak in court without such a threat. PROPOSED that no order for costs can be made against the tenant where a bank seeks repossession against a landlord.

The judges should also make a restitution order under S.240 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The first order is against the bank for as much as was used to pay the mortgage. The upper limit should be the full amount of the deposit plus 90% of the rent paid for the last six months. Stolen / fake goods sell for roughly 10% of genuine article’s selling price, hence the 90% potential refund. The secondly part is against the landlord for 90% of the last 6 months rent paid which was not used to pay the mortgage. An order against any landlord is only of any use if he has the funds to pay. It is worth noting that a debt obtained through fraud survives bankruptcy by virtue of Section 281(3) Insolvency Act 1986.
(3) Discharge does not release the bankrupt from any bankruptcy debt which …..was secured by means of. any fraud ….to which he was a party.

The principle of this section should not be available for “liar loans” (applicant exaggerated their income) where a bank encouraged the fraud by stating that there would be no checks on income.
.

FraudBuster

(3) Discharge does not release the bankrupt from any bankruptcy debt which …..was secured by means of. any fraud ….to which he was a party.

Agreed.........................

Willsnarf1983

roger196 wrote: »

This is my draft submission to the consultative document issued by the Dept for Communities and Local Govt on tenants being evicted with no notice as the landlord did not have a BTL mortgage. The first the tenant knows about the repossession is when the bailiffs turn up on the doorstep to evict. All comments welcome.

Civil or Criminal
If the landlord did not have a BTL ( buy-to-let) mortgage, then the landlord falsely pretended to the tenant that he was able to grant a 6 month AST giving the tenant peaceful enjoyment of the property for six months. Thus the rent was obtained by false representation. This is a criminal matter under S.2 of the Fraud Act 2006. Fraud by false representation occurs when a person dishonestly makes a false representation (express or implied), to make a gain for himself or to cause loss to another (e.g. the loss of the tenancy)
The bank may then be in possession of the tenant’s money (if the rent was used to pay the mortgage) falsely obtained and that it should be returned to the tenant under S.240 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Administration Costs
Legislation and codes of practice need to be self-enforcing to minimize administration costs. The proposed changes to the tenancy agreement should reduce the number of unauthorized tenancies starting. The proposed changes to repossession hearings should deal with existing unauthorized tenancies.

Why do unauthorized tenancies occur?
As a bank charges a higher arrangement fee and a higher rate of interest, the landlord will pretend the property is for their own occupation. These higher fees reflect the greater risk that BTL represents and a desire to share in the profits from renting. A claim for owner occupation will also reduce / eliminate capital gains tax on ultimate sale of the property. Also the rental income is less likely to be declared to the tax authorities. This part is not always true, mine mortgage is now a buy to let at the same rate of interest as when I lived in it.

Responsibility of Lender
To what extent is the lender complicit? Did they make any attempt to confirm that the landlord was living at the address which he claimed as buying for his own residential use? What address was used for correspondence. Did the purchaser own a number of properties?
I do not think the lender should be required to make extensive searches, but simple audit enquiries from readily available material e.g. voters lists, should be expected every couple of years. These are necessary for the protection of any asset which appears in company’s financial statements i.e. does the asset exist and at what value. Voters lists in inaccurate but I understand what your saying

Are repossessions necessary?
Repossessions are necessary to allow house prices to fall to an affordable level where tenants can buy their own home. thats not the point of repossesions They also allow the correct functioning of the housing market. Without repossessions there is no moral hazard for the landlord. An innocent tenant is the victim of a crime and should see the same level of protection as other tenants. The present problem has arisen as the spat between the landlord and the bank is seen as a civil matter ignoring the tenant.
Tenant to be entitled to recover money obtained fraudulently from bank as the rent will / should have been used to pay the mortgage. I disagree on this, see below about what banks should do



Changes to Tenancy Agreement
In the same way that a tenant has to disclose much personal and financial information to pass a landlord’s credit check, so a landlord should provide information as to his authority to let the property. This is a justifiable question as the validity of the AST depends on it. It is PROPOSED that the landlord is required to state in tenancy agreement that he has a BTL mortgage, that he authorizes the bank to disclose to the tenant when mortgage goes into arrears. If this happens, the tenancy agreement authorizes the tenant to pay all rent direct to the bank. again disagree, its not down to the bank to have sort problems like this out

Privacy of Post
If the landlord's post is coming to the tenant’s property, the chances are that the landlord is pretending he is living there as his principal private residence. It is PROPOSED that the tenant has the right to open mail addressed to landlord one month after tenancy starts. There has to be a balance between the landlord’s right to privacy for his mail and the protection of the tenant against fraud. This will allow tenant to find out if things are going wrong. The land registry entry can then be inspected for the name of the borrower. Its not illegal now to open post sent to your home address thats not got your name on it but I don't agree with doing it. However I don't agree with this part of the post as its not really got anything to do with it.

Direction to judges
Judges should be directed to ensure that the tenant gets a fair hearing and be obliged to consider a restitution order under S.240 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. This section allows the authority to recover in court property or cash obtained through unlawful conduct (whether his own conduct or another's), and whether or not any proceedings have been brought for the offence.


At present the first the tenant learns about the repossession order is when the bailiffs turn up at his door to evict him. Notifications of repossession hearings should be sent not only to the owner (marked “do not re-direct” to prevent landlord using the redirection service to hide his true address.) but also to the occupier of the property. This notice could also serve as a 2 month notice of termination of the tenancy (once the first 6 months had expired). S21 of the Housing Act 1988 could be amended if necessary.

European Convention of Human Rights
The tenant has an AST, although unlawfully granted, which is a form of property. It can be argued that the repossession order is ultra vires being an arbitrary seizure of property contrary to Article 1 of ECHR (European Convention of Human Rights) Article 1 states that every natural person...is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law...... Thus it could be argued that the AST is binding on the lender.
It can also be argued that the repossession order is a result of an unfair court hearing in breach of Article 6. The tenant is entitled in pursuit of his civil rights under Article 6 to a fair hearing. This requires that he has adequate notice (say 6 weeks) and that he is actually heard. The threat of large court costs is often used by the banks to deter the tenant from appearing. Given the disparity of financial strength, this is deprivation of a right to a fair hearing. The victim of a crime should be allowed to speak in court without such a threat. PROPOSED that no order for costs can be made against the tenant where a bank seeks repossession against a landlord.

The judges should also make a restitution order under S.240 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The first order is against the bank for as much as was used to pay the mortgage. The upper limit should be the full amount of the deposit plus 90% of the rent paid for the last six months. Stolen / fake goods sell for roughly 10% of genuine article’s selling price, hence the 90% potential refund. The secondly part is against the landlord for 90% of the last 6 months rent paid which was not used to pay the mortgage. An order against any landlord is only of any use if he has the funds to pay. It is worth noting that a debt obtained through fraud survives bankruptcy by virtue of Section 281(3) Insolvency Act 1986.
(3) Discharge does not release the bankrupt from any bankruptcy debt which …..was secured by means of. any fraud ….to which he was a party.

The principle of this section should not be available for “liar loans” (applicant exaggerated their income) where a bank encouraged the fraud by stating that there would be no checks on income.
.

In principle its a good idea but personally I think it would just as good to have the following

If a landlord loses his house and has a tenant in there and unless its on a rolling 1 month or within 2 months of finishing an AST then the Bank should allow the AST to run its course and if the House has lost money in that time then its on the LANDLORDs cost after selling the house. If its on the 1 month or within 2 months of the end of an AST then the bank should allow 2-3 months for the tenant to get their affairs sorted.

Will

silvercar

roger196 wrote: »

This is my draft submission to the consultative document issued by the Dept for Communities and Local Govt on tenants being evicted with no notice as the landlord did not have a BTL mortgage. The first the tenant knows about the repossession is when the bailiffs turn up on the doorstep to evict. All comments welcome.

Civil or Criminal
If the landlord did not have a BTL ( buy-to-let) mortgage, or consent to let on a resi mortgagethen the landlord falsely pretended to the tenant that he was able to grant a 6 month AST giving the tenant peaceful enjoyment of the property for six months.if the rent was upto date at the start of the tenancy then it would be unlikely to lead to repossession within 6 months. Thus the rent was obtained by false representation. This is a criminal matter under S.2 of the Fraud Act 2006. Fraud by false representation occurs when a person dishonestly makes a false representation (express or implied), to make a gain for himself or to cause loss to another (e.g. the loss of the tenancy)
The bank may then be in possession of the tenant’s money (if the rent was used to pay the mortgage) Either the mortgage was paid using rent money and there would be no repossession or the mortgage wasn't paid and the landlord kept the rent money. WHichever way round there wouldn't be a repossession and the bank receiving the tenants money. falsely obtained and that it should be returned to the tenant under S.240 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Administration Costs
Legislation and codes of practice need to be self-enforcing to minimize administration costs. The proposed changes to the tenancy agreement should reduce the number of unauthorized tenancies starting. The proposed changes to repossession hearings should deal with existing unauthorized tenancies.

Why do unauthorized tenancies occur?
As a bank charges a higher arrangement fee and a higher rate of interest, not alwaysthe landlord will pretend the property is for their own occupation. Your missing the cases where the landlord was resident and subsequently moved out.These higher fees reflect the greater risk that BTL represents and a desire to share in the profits from renting. A claim for owner occupation will also reduce / eliminate capital gains tax on ultimate sale of the property. Also the rental income is less likely to be declared to the tax authorities.

Responsibility of Lender
To what extent is the lender complicit? Did they make any attempt to confirm that the landlord was living at the address which he claimed as buying for his own residential use? What address was used for correspondence. Did the purchaser own a number of properties?
I do not think the lender should be required to make extensive searches, but simple audit enquiries from readily available material e.g. voters lists, should be expected every couple of years. These are necessary for the protection of any asset which appears in company’s financial statements i.e. does the asset exist and at what value.

Are repossessions necessary?
Repossessions are necessary to allow house prices to fall to an affordable level where tenants can buy their own home. They also allow the correct functioning of the housing market. Without repossessions there is no moral hazard for the landlord. An innocent tenant is the victim of a crime and should see the same level of protection as other tenants. The present problem has arisen as the spat between the landlord and the bank is seen as a civil matter ignoring the tenant.
Tenant to be entitled to recover money obtained fraudulently from bank as the rent will / should have been used to pay the mortgage.



Changes to Tenancy Agreement
In the same way that a tenant has to disclose much personal and financial information to pass a landlord’s credit check, so a landlord should provide information as to his authority to let the property. This is a justifiable question as the validity of the AST depends on it. It is PROPOSED that the landlord is required to state in tenancy agreement that he has a BTL mortgage,or consent to let or completely offset that he authorizes the bank to disclose to the tenant when mortgage goes into arrears. If this happens, the tenancy agreement authorizes the tenant to pay all rent direct to the bank.

Privacy of Post
If the landlord's post is coming to the tenant’s property, the chances are that the landlord is pretending he is living there as his principal private residence. It is PROPOSED that the tenant has the right to open mail addressed to landlord one month after tenancy starts. There has to be a balance between the landlord’s right to privacy for his mail and the protection of the tenant against fraud. This will allow tenant to find out if things are going wrong. The land registry entry can then be inspected for the name of the borrower.

Direction to judges
Judges should be directed to ensure that the tenant gets a fair hearing and be obliged to consider a restitution order under S.240 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. This section allows the authority to recover in court property or cash obtained through unlawful conduct (whether his own conduct or another's), and whether or not any proceedings have been brought for the offence.


At present the first the tenant learns about the repossession order is when the bailiffs turn up at his door to evict him. Notifications of repossession hearings should be sent not only to the owner (marked “do not re-direct” to prevent landlord using the redirection service to hide his true address.) but also to the occupier of the property. This notice could also serve as a 2 month notice of termination of the tenancy (once the first 6 months had expired). S21 of the Housing Act 1988 could be amended if necessary.

European Convention of Human Rights
The tenant has an AST, although unlawfully granted, which is a form of property. It can be argued that the repossession order is ultra vires being an arbitrary seizure of property contrary to Article 1 of ECHR (European Convention of Human Rights) Article 1 states that every natural person...is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law...... Thus it could be argued that the AST is binding on the lender.
It can also be argued that the repossession order is a result of an unfair court hearing in breach of Article 6. The tenant is entitled in pursuit of his civil rights under Article 6 to a fair hearing. This requires that he has adequate notice (say 6 weeks) and that he is actually heard. The threat of large court costs is often used by the banks to deter the tenant from appearing. Given the disparity of financial strength, this is deprivation of a right to a fair hearing. The victim of a crime should be allowed to speak in court without such a threat. PROPOSED that no order for costs can be made against the tenant where a bank seeks repossession against a landlord.

The judges should also make a restitution order under S.240 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The first order is against the bank for as much as was used to pay the mortgage. The upper limit should be the full amount of the deposit plus 90% of the rent paid for the last six months. Stolen / fake goods sell for roughly 10% of genuine article’s selling price, hence the 90% potential refund.Don't know how you equate fake goods with living in a property. The secondly part is against the landlord for 90% of the last 6 months rent paid which was not used to pay the mortgage. An order against any landlord is only of any use if he has the funds to pay. It is worth noting that a debt obtained through fraud survives bankruptcy by virtue of Section 281(3) Insolvency Act 1986.
(3) Discharge does not release the bankrupt from any bankruptcy debt which …..was secured by means of. any fraud ….to which he was a party.

The principle of this section should not be available for “liar loans” (applicant exaggerated their income) where a bank encouraged the fraud by stating that there would be no checks on income.
.

I see what you are trying to achieve. You could make things a lot easier to enact by saying that all mortgage allow for the mortgagee to take tenants. That way the mortgagee is liable for the payments, whether by their own income of rental income. It would also give automatic security to tenants as ASTs would have to be acknowledged, subject to a max length. Anyone taking a mortgage would then have the right to move out and take tenants if their circumstances made it necessary. (job loss/ relocate etc). It would get ris of a quandry at present where someone knows they could afford to pay the mortgage by taking a tenant, but the lender won't allow it.

roger196

Thanks for comments so far, they are a great help.
Anyone else have anything to add

Roger

princeofpounds

Roger, this actually happened to me and I think it's a real big black hole in the tenancy legislation.

Can I ask in what capacity you are submitting this? And what this process is exactly?

To give you some real indepth thought on the matter will take some time, but I've got a couple of thoughts here:

- I agree that the granting of a lease without permission seems (at least to the victim!) to be a crime, and you discuss it in such terms here, but I've never heard of it being prosecuted in this way. I wonder why not, and if the reason, if one exists, precludes you from being able to make statements in this manner.

- One of the difficulties is that the whole idea of mortgages is that banks are meant to retain first charge on the property, so you are proposing a very fundamental change where tenancies gain some kind of priority as default rather than through agreement. What happens if favourable tenancies are set up with related parties if default looks likely?

- I am a financial analyst and one thing I have seen that is clear is that there is some kind of peverse incentive for banks not to push for proper BTL mortgages - the latter actually give away some rights and increase risk, and so when LL let their properties out improperly and banks passively allow this they are misrepresenting their own position. On the scale of a whole bank this is probably minor but even so...

- When I had these problems, I got a court letter (for the occupier) but the court would not disclose any information to me, nor the bank, not the landlord (all citing 'data protection') as I wasn't a party to the case. So finding out any information was impossible and all I could have done was go to the court (being lucky I actually found out about it) and ask the judge myself what the hell was going on. I at least was told I should leave, but many LL would keep spinning a story that it would be resolved, preventing the tenant from sorting things out.

- When the court date is coming through, as a tenant you have very little power to be proactive. As you (may) know you probably will have to move, you would like to start looking around. However, you cannot do so because if the order is not given, the LL can then turn around and hold you to the rest of your contract! I do not know how judges can make proper judgement on possession dates when they do not necessarily involve the person most affected by possession either; if you don't know about the court date, they can set a 14 day limit and the first the tenant knows it when the order pops through the door with even less time to go. At least the bailiffs tend not to be too fast, but you never know how long you really have!

- I don't think you will get anywhere with the post idea, and to be honest if the system was set up correctly so that BTL permission was transparent then you wouldn't need anything like this.

more to come as I think it.

silvercar

Some food for thought:

A friend has a business which is doing OK, but he wanted a loan or overdraft to aid cash flow. So he goes to his bank and asks them. The bank agreed in principle and he asked what security they would require. They said they had all the security they needed, as one of their subsiduary companies had his BTL mortgage on a let property he has. Under the rules of offsetting (not offset mortgages but a banks power to take funds from one account to clear outstanding bad loans elsewhere.) Fine. But out of interest he asked what would happen to his tenants if his business went bust and they wanted the loan repaid. The bank manager said they would take possession and he doubted they would have to honour the tenancy as it was only the subsiduary company that had agreed to the letting, the bank was just using the fact there was a mortgage as security. In signing to take the loan he had acknowledged the banks right to offset and that was all the bank needed.

So BTL mortgage isn't enough to guarantee a tenants safe home, you also need to ensure the landlord has and will not take any loan, credit card, overdraft, business funding....... with any company financially linked to the mortgage lender!

Or you need to change the system.

princeofpounds

Silvercar, I think that the bank manager may have been mistaken in that case. A parent company can't just overrule a contractual relationship of a subsidiary (and that's what a BTL mortgage is).

Having said that, it might be a case that the 'acknowledging the bank's right to offset' was actually cancelling the BTL permission, but still keeping it let out. In the same way as you don't need BTL permission to let out, there is probably nothing restricting you from cancelling the BTL permission except whether the bank is prepared to continue lending on that basis and ignore the real, tenanted situation.

m_13

Proceeds of Crime Act restraint orders can only be applied for by Accredited Financial Investigators and can only be obtained if a criminal investigation has commenced.

I think you'd struggle to get the police interested in pursuing a single landlord for fraud by false representation for granting an AST when it was possible that the property could be repossessed because it wasn't bought on a BTL mortgage. I just don't think you could get a criminal investigation started. It's more likely that a civil case would take place between the mortgage company and the mortgagee.

silvercar

m_13 wrote: »

Proceeds of Crime Act restraint orders can only be applied for by Accredited Financial Investigators and can only be obtained if a criminal investigation has commenced.

I think you'd struggle to get the police interested in pursuing a single landlord for fraud by false representation for granting an AST when it was possible that the property could be repossessed because it wasn't bought on a BTL mortgage. I just don't think you could get a criminal investigation started. It's more likely that a civil case would take place between the mortgage company and the mortgagee.

Agreed. If the landlord did first live in the property there would be no fraud, as the money was genuinely obtained to buy a residential home. If there is no fraud there is no criminal activity. There is a breach of mortgage terms, but that would be a civil matter.

roger196

m_13 wrote: »

Proceeds of Crime Act restraint orders can only be applied for by Accredited Financial Investigators and can only be obtained if a criminal investigation has commenced.

I think you'd struggle to get the police interested in pursuing a single landlord for fraud by false representation for granting an AST when it was possible that the property could be repossessed because it wasn't bought on a BTL mortgage. I just don't think you could get a criminal investigation started. It's more likely that a civil case would take place between the mortgage company and the mortgagee.

240 General purpose of this Part
(1) This Part has effect for the purposes of—
(a) enabling the enforcement authority to recover, in civil proceedings before the High Court or Court of Session, property which is, or represents, property obtained through unlawful conduct,
(b) enabling cash which is, or represents, property obtained through unlawful conduct, or which is intended to be used in unlawful conduct, to be forfeited in civil proceedings before a magistrates' court or (in Scotland) the sheriff.
(2) The powers conferred by this Part are exercisable in relation to any property (including cash) whether or not any proceedings have been brought for an offence in connection with the property.


S240(2) Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 quoted above seems to suggest that the view "can only be obtained if a criminal investigation has commenced" may not be correct. Is there some other part of the act which I should be looking at?

If the police are reluctant to do their job is that a good reason for not considering the correct legal position?