Consent to Let

chappers

I would just write back saying there is no mortgage on the property and the tenant can confirm this via the land registry if they wish, and leave it at that.
The charge has no bearing upon the security of the tenancy and would appear to be enforcable only by yourself anyway.

N79

I wasn't seeking advice in my original post but thanks for all the interesting comments. I just thought I would post to complete the story.

Yesterday potential Ts informed that a letter would be provided stating that there was no mortgage. They seemed happy and applied to rent the property.

MissMoneypenny

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.....

I'm glad to see the message is getting through to tenants although they should be checking land registry too, to see if a landlord has charges against the property...which you do.

Thanks for letting us know.

silvercar

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I'm glad to see the message is getting through to tenants although they should be checking land registry too, to see if a landlord has charges against the property...which you do.

Thanks for letting us know.

But charges will never have consent to let as they should only come into force when the property is sold. In practice holding a charge can allow the lender to go to court to gain possession if other contracts are not satisified eg repayment schedules, business contracts.

Thrugelmir

chappers wrote: »

I would just write back saying there is no mortgage on the property and the tenant can confirm this via the land registry if they wish, and leave it at that.
The charge has no bearing upon the security of the tenancy and would appear to be enforcable only by yourself anyway.

A mortgage is not a charge. It is the terms under which money is lent to purchase a property.

A charge is the security/collaterall by which money is lent against a property.

A search of the land registry will reveal the charge. For whatever reason the party holding the charge could force the sale of the property to discharge the charge.

Interconnected companies are akin to dominoes, one falls and the rest topple likewise.

franklee

Thrugelmir wrote: »

A mortgage is not a charge. It is the terms under which money is lent to purchase a property.

A charge is the security/collaterall by which money is lent against a property.

A search of the land registry will reveal the charge. For whatever reason the party holding the charge could force the sale of the property to discharge the charge.

Interconnected companies are akin to dominoes, one falls and the rest topple likewise.

For the land reg docs I've downloaded of the various properties I've rented the mortgage lender shows up in the following sections:

Register Extract
Lender(s) : Gives name of mortgage company.

and:

C Charges Register
This register contains any charges and other matters that affect the land.
...
(date) Proprietor: name of mortgage company etc.

So the mortgage lender is listed in the charges register. No mortgage lender would lend the money without getting a charge on the title.

Thrugelmir

franklee wrote: »

For the land reg docs I've downloaded of the various properties I've rented the mortgage lender shows up in the following sections:

Register Extract
Lender(s) : Gives name of mortgage company.

and:

C Charges Register
This register contains any charges and other matters that affect the land.
...
(date) Proprietor: name of mortgage company etc.

So the mortgage lender is listed in the charges register. No mortgage lender would lend the money without getting a charge on the title.

My point is more technical and splitting hairs. A charge can be placed on a property for a variety of reasons.

So depending on how a question is phrased there doesn't have be a mortgage on the property but there still could be a charge.

A mortgage is not a charge. :beer:

franklee

Thrugelmir wrote: »

My point is more technical and splitting hairs. A charge can be placed on a property for a variety of reasons.

So depending on how a question is phrased there doesn't have be a mortgage on the property but there still could be a charge.

A mortgage is not a charge. :beer:

Yes, BTW I wasn't disagreeing with you but trying to reinforce the point that a tenant should look at the land registry document :beer:

silvercar

You can also find a property has been used as security without a charge showing up.

Say there is a BTL mortgage with say Barclays mortgages shown on the deeds. The LL would be able to show consent to let. Now say the landlord also has another business and that business banks with the local branch of Barclays. Say that business runs into difficulties and has a loan or overdraft that can't be paid off. Barclays has the right (it will be in the mortgage small print) to use the charge they have for the mortgage to claw back the unauthorised (or no longer being paid) business money. Yet nowhere on the deeds will it say that the property is security for the business.

MissMoneypenny

silvercar wrote: »

You can also find a property has been used as security without a charge showing up.

Say there is a BTL mortgage with say Barclays mortgages shown on the deeds. The LL would be able to show consent to let. Now say the landlord also has another business and that business banks with the local branch of Barclays. Say that business runs into difficulties and has a loan or overdraft that can't be paid off. Barclays has the right (it will be in the mortgage small print) to use the charge they have for the mortgage to claw back the unauthorised (or no longer being paid) business money. Yet nowhere on the deeds will it say that the property is security for the business.

If the LL has a Barclays mortgage on his own house, Barclays could claw back their money on that house. It might be easier to go for the LLs own house if they have given a Consent to Let on the rented house.