Repossession in action!!!

franklee

theartfullodger wrote: »

Silvercar is right.. (as usual..) but thinking of my own case, I usually live in a place I'm (slowly) doing up so it often/usually looks in worse condition than anything I'm currently renting... Thinks, is that why my tenants eye me warily???

I would as suggested drive by a landlord's own property to see if there are any clues but that's such a tentative thing. If there are shiny new cars on the drive the landlord may be wealthy or up to his neck in bad debt, it's impossible to tell.

A prospective tenant should go on asking for recent proof of consent to let as that will help in most cases, so long as there is consent when the tenant moves in. If the landlord is already in the advanced stages of getting repossessed then it's not that helpful as there must be some point during the repossession when the landlord no longer has consent to let to a new tenant although I've not seen any legal comments on exactly when that is. However as a LL still has the keys during the last few weeks after the possession order has been granted but before the bailiffs arrive there is nothing physically stopping him letting the property again. I've not as yet seen this point addressed as the consultation etc. seems to assume the tenant will get any notices served ignoring the point that they may not have been tenants then.

Still it looks like the government is happy to leave tenants in the mire over this.

OP, Is there any update? Like the earlier comments I hope these tenants are OK.

franklee

silvercar wrote: »

What you really want to do is check that your landlord has funds. If he lives in the locality a drive past his own property may give clues. If it looks to be falling apart then beware, a landlord that can't afford to keep his own place in decent repair is not a good sign.

I agree but when asking about landlord's funds was suggested on MissMoneypenny's thread there were howls of protest from landlords that prospective tenants would be too nosey for asking for proof the mortgage on the rental was paid up to date

The point is consent to let is one of the few things a tenant can easily ask for and even then there are landlords on here who would object to even providing that. The thing is a tenant has very little to go on!

lightsoff

This is very worrying, my LL are in serious mortgage arrears and have been issued court action. I am in fear I'm going to lose my home

theartfullodger

I agree but when asking about landlord's funds was suggested on MissMoneypenny's thread there were howls of protest from landlords that prospective tenants would be too nosey for asking for proof the mortgage on the rental was paid up to date

I've never been asked for this sort of info but can't see why an honest and open LL would object to producing some evidence: e.g. the annual statement of outstanding funds owed.... What's to hide?? Stone me, LL's want shed-loads of info on tenants...


Mind you, you'd worry about identity theft if too much was revealed... (T on LL or indeed LL on T...)

Cheers!

Lodger

franklee

theartfullodger wrote: »

I've never been asked for this sort of info but can't see why an honest and open LL would object to producing some evidence: e.g. the annual statement of outstanding funds owed.... What's to hide?? Stone me, LL's want shed-loads of info on tenants...


Mind you, you'd worry about identity theft if too much was revealed... (T on LL or indeed LL on T...)

Well I did make the suggestion on that thread to copy any statements and blank out the account number or any sensitive info. like bank details. Can't see what else would matter as the tenant is already entitled to the landlord's name and address and the land registry gives the lender's name.

I do think a landlord is open to identity theft by a tenant regardless. As is a tenant to identity theft by the landlord or the next tenant who moves in. Indeed the next tenant is even given the old tenant's signature on the copy of the gas safety certificate!

Anyway it's still worth a tenant asking for proof of consent to let as that covers most cases and is therefore a lot better than nothing.

silvercar

If it was a BTL mortgage, as opposed to consent to let on a residential mortgage, the landlord has consent to let for the duration. So even if repossession is imminent the landlord still has the BTL mortgage and therefore the right to instal tenants. (Though the landlord would be breaching the tenancy agreement if the lender repossessed and the tenants deprived of a home.)

I'm pondering what can be shown for BTL mortgage that shows there is no possession order.

On identity theft, the biggest risk to the landlord must be where there is no mortgage, so the tenant can take out a residential remortgage by impersonating the landlord.

franklee

silvercar wrote: »

If it was a BTL mortgage, as opposed to consent to let on a residential mortgage, the landlord has consent to let for the duration. So even if repossession is imminent the landlord still has the BTL mortgage and therefore the right to instal tenants. (Though the landlord would be breaching the tenancy agreement if the lender repossessed and the tenants deprived of a home.)

I'm pondering what can be shown for BTL mortgage that shows there is no possession order.

The thing is a lender getting a possession order takes time, so if at the start of the tenancy the landlord had a recent letter from the lender acknowledging consent to let then at least the tenant knows all is fine at the time they move in and knows their particular tenancy is binding on the landlord's lender.

Any proof of consent to let that is months old may no longer be relevant. Indeed a landlord could have remortgaged elsewhere in the intervening months before the tenancy starts and thus be showing the tenant obsolete information.

So something recent would give the tenant the best chance of knowing the tenancy is binding on the landlord's lender. Seeing some sort of statement of the payments being up to date would back this up. I really don't know why this is so difficult to do.