Consent to Let

silvercar

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Though what's the purpose of the charge? Presumably to secure a debt. So a little more than you've said so far.

That is an interesting point. It is often the case that landlords have other financial interests. Their finances are often tied together in subtle ways that are not apparent from checking deeds. To rely on a piece of paper that says mortgage lender knows a property is tenanted is not as foolproof as people are led to believe. Far better to know that the mortgage is paid upto date and the landlord's business(es) are sound.

franklee

I'd have thought a letter giving the company names and lists of directors & who owns shares should suffice. If T doesn't believe you you could suggest they they can look it up at companies house to verify, and at land registry of course. So long as all the trails say it's all owned by you with no debts to anyone else I don't see a problem.

Are you overseas? If so lobbing in the IR exemption from the non resident landlord's scheme would show you are all well organised and professional. Unless of course you employ a UK agent so it's not needed

N79

True - if this sort of questioning becomes more common then some sort of disclosure standard will develop over time I guess. Until then we shall muddle through as always.

Franklee - as an aside Companies House only has details of UK registered companies not overseas registered companies.

N79

franklee wrote: »

Are you overseas? If so lobbing in the IR exemption from the non resident landlord's scheme would show you are all well organised and professional. Unless of course you employ a UK agent so it's not needed

Or if the direct LL is a UK registered company, even if the shareholders are non-resident!

Fire_Fox

This all seems to be getting a little complicated! Try the 'I don't have a mortgage so don't require consent to lease' approach and see if the tenants ask about the charge. I am assuming the way the charge is organised means even if you went bankrupt/ the company went into administration, the AST still stands?

franklee

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Though what's the purpose of the charge? Presumably to secure a debt. So a little more than you've said so far.

I thought the OP said he/she owns 100% of both companies, so not a debt owed outside the OP, I'd guess it's adventageous to hold the property that way, more tax efficient or something like that?

silvercar

franklee wrote: »

I'd have thought a letter giving the company names and lists of directors & who owns shares should suffice. If T doesn't believe you you could suggest they they can look it up at companies house to verify, and at land registry of course. So long as all the trails say it's all owned by you with no debts to anyone else I don't see a problem.

In this case there appears to be no issue.

In general, a bank could have a charge on a property as security, I don't mean a mortgage, I mean a charge in return for a loan unconnected with the letting of the property. So "BTL or "CTL" are not relevent terms. The tenant has no way of knowing the landlords business prospects and has no way of knowing if the lender(s) may attempt to take the properties from the landlord. In these circumstances, would you say that a tenant should look elsewhere?

Progressing this idea further, a lender may also not have a formal charge on the property, but may have the right/ ability to pursue the landlords assets for other unconnected debts. Any would be tenant would have no way of knowing this. So really a tenancy is never totally secure.

franklee

OK, so is this right? You fully own two companies. One is the landlord and is UK registered. The second is abroad. The UK company owes the abroad company? You reside abroad. Looks like a tax efficient way of collecting rent to me, if the UK company pays the abroad company interest for the debt that can be offset agent the rental income?

It seems to me you'd need the abroad company to write a letter giving the UK company consent to let. OK so it's you writing the letter to yourself but as the companies are separate legal entities that doesn't matter. So you do want to write a consent to let letter, on company headed paper duly signed etc.

As a prospective T I'd be wanting to know how repairs were going to be organised, I'd prefer to see a UK agent for that.

PasturesNew

N79 wrote: »

This is one for MissMoneyPenny (apologies if this is the wrong spelling) and Firefox

Today, for the first time ever, I have been asked by a set of prospective Ts to provide them with evidence that I have "consent to let" the property.

I thought you would be interested to know since you I seem to recall that you have both posted stongly on this subject that this message seem to be sinking through to Ts. I guess this is becuase of the media coverage etc.

Not sure yet how I will reply yet.....

Scan in the headed paper from your mortgage company, then create/write your own CONSENT TO LET letter :P

Thrugelmir

franklee wrote: »

I thought the OP said he/she owns 100% of both companies, so not a debt owed outside the OP, I'd guess it's adventageous to hold the property that way, more tax efficient or something like that?

Whatever the facts. The potential tenant requires confirmation of the situation. Any facts relevant but omitted from the letter, but have a bearing if a dispute was to arise would make it difficult for the letting company.