BTL or lease without the banks knowlege?

mealeys

The financial services company I work for only allow lettings for 12 months and if you are going to be letting for longer, they would require you to remortgage to another lender as they do not offer Buy To Let mortgages. I would recommend you getting permission, do not let without consent because of the huge problems it can cause for you, you have no protection.

PayDay

Pitlanepiglet wrote: »

Totally agree, and Moneydoesgrowontrees - it's tenant - one "n" in the middle. It's good to see that you are well up on your subject!

Not a good idea to do that as it makes other people look at your posts.

From your other post in this thread

Pitlanepiglet wrote: »

A lender would have to get a Possession Order before evicting a tenant and I suspect their is little difference for a tenant between whether there is consent or not.

It's "there" not "their"

Pitlanepiglet

PayDay wrote: »

Not a good idea to do that as it makes other people look at your posts.

From your other post in this thread


It's "there" not "their"

Thank you very much, must try harder!

If you keep going you'll find loads more :T:T:rotfl::rotfl:

My spelling is crap, I do however manage to spell relevant words like tenant correctly most of the time

PayDay

chappers wrote: »

but sometimes desperate times require desperate measures. If I had to move to India and my only choices were to let without consent, sell and be left with a debt(lender may not even allow this)or to just leave the property empty and carry on paying the mortgage then I know which I would choose.

It seems like the OP was aware they would want to rent their property out before they applied for a residential mortgage. :rolleyes:

mountaingirl wrote: »

If I ever had to rent-- which would command a better rental value?

Pitlanepiglet

PayDay wrote: »

It seems like the OP was aware they would want to rent their property out before they applied for a residential mortgage. :rolleyes:

I'm guessing she had little intention of being in negative equity inside two years in a property market that had collapsed around her with, in many industries, very few employment prospects.

(please feel free to rate my grammar and spelling :rotfl:)

franklee

chappers wrote: »

Franklee generaly I would agree with you wholeheartedly, but sometimes desperate times require desperate measures. If I had to move to India and my only choices were to let without consent, sell and be left with a debt(lender may not even allow this)or to just leave the property empty and carry on paying the mortgage then I know which I would choose.

Of course the temptation for the landlord to let without consent is there as you have explained, which is why IMO nothing short of legislation will sort this out.

IMO the best way out of negative equity (apart from not to have purchased a property with little deposit) is to stay put and work to get the debt paid off. As soon as the "owner" moves elsewhere they potentially have to pay to maintain two properties, the one they live in and the rental.

chappers wrote: »

You are correct letting without consent would be a breach of the terms of most resi mortgages but it is highly unlikely that a lender would reposses for that reason alone, they would most probably use it as argument to back up arrears.

Landlords here line up to say that but I just quoted that paragraph directly from Shelter's website and given the link. I was surprised to see it too as I've read the page many times before and only just noticed it, perhaps it's new. Clearly Shelter are at the sharp end of all this so must know more than either of us about what lenders do.

Besides as I've said before I think accidental landlords, especially those in in NE, are more likely to fall into arrears as they underestimate the costs and risks of being a landlord, the property wasn't chosen for a profitable let and they don't sound like the types to have six months contingency to me. Also their own moving is expensive in itself and their own income most at risk when they start a new job, it may not work out, or if there are then redundancies there is often a last in first out policy. Of course if the move is due to already having lost a job, or if inexperience has meant they chose a bad first tenant then they may already be in arrears before the new tenant like myself has even viewed.

Tenants are people with families to keep a roof over too, so as a tenant I'd do my best to flush out that type of landlord without consent to let avoid them if at all possible by asking the relevant questions. So often tenants who find out about a possible repossession write in this forum that the landlord stops communicating, or says the arrears will be paid off without proving it, leaving the tenant in limbo, bound to a tenancy that isn't binding on the lender, knowing there will be a repossession hearing but with the lender and landlord refusing to disclose the details or if the repossession will be staved off. I wouldn't want my family to be the ones living with that stress and uncertainty due to the landlord's financial difficulties.

chappers wrote: »

A legal tenancy would be created in the absence of consent to let and you are right the tenant can in theory sue for breach of contract should the LL not be able to fulfil the contract.

Yes, but realistically the tenant is unlikely to get much back once the lender et al have had theirs.

franklee

mealeys wrote: »

The financial services company I work for only allow lettings for 12 months and if you are going to be letting for longer, they would require you to remortgage to another lender as they do not offer Buy To Let mortgages. I would recommend you getting permission, do not let without consent because of the huge problems it can cause for you, you have no protection.

What would your company do if they found out someone had let on the quiet and a tenant was already in residence without your company being told?

seven-day-weekend

I would not be able to show the people who live in my UK house a 'Consent to Let' because I do not have a mortgage and therefore have no-one to ask consent from.

When I did have a mortgaged property however, I did get a CTL on it and would advise others to do so, for insurance purposes (although my insurance company never asked me this question) and also because the lender can repossess if they find out you have done it without consent.

However, I can't see why it should affect the tenant or in fact, respectfully, be any of their business? They can be given two month's notice whether the landlord has a CTL or not, or whether the house is repossessed or not. Whether you think this is a fair law is for another discussion, but at the moment this is the case.Why should it make any difference to that whether the landlord has a CTL or not?

benjo

I have been a LL myself and I have been a tenant myself.

As a LL the thing I desired most was one 'great' tenant, I didnt want to be messing about with new tenants every year, I wanted one tenant, long term, who paid their rent, felt 'at home' and were happy.

As a tenant the thing I desired most was a 'great landlord' who provided me with a nice home and the security of knowing that my home wouldnt be whipped away at a moments notice.

I once lived in a rented house that I loved and cared for like it was my very own little home. I loved the LL and his family, paid my rent ontime for 5 years and would happily have carried on doing that for life, as a tenant I had found everything I wanted. I provided the LL with everything that he wanted, a long term, well behaved, well paying tenant for as long as he wanted me there - the perfect marriage!

I found out some years after I moved in that he didnt have consent to let - and this knowledge played a big part in me moving out of the house (of course there were other factors).

That one little piece of information took away my sense of security.

Would I rent a house from you, if you had no consent to let - no, Im sorry.

However I'm sure many people would rent even knowing that you didnt have consent, but I think you will reap what you sow. If you dont respect the 'rules' by association you dont respect your tenants and their security - why should the tenants respect your 'rules' or respect the agreement you make with them to pay the rent, not poop on your neighbours garden and not strip the wiring from your house and sell it to the local scrappy?

Do it properly, do it legally.

clutton_2

a lot of hysteria gets whipped up on MSE about this particular issue on a regular basis... its not that long ago that folks were being asked for £5k+ to get consent to let from the likes of Halifax - sheer greed - so i personally can well understand why some LLs dont get consent....

but as 7-day-w-e says, if a L stops paying the mortgage the tenant is out anyway - (consent or no consent) and its up to the Courts as to how much notice they get... and that is a piece of string answer....