Consent to Let

MissMoneypenny

silvercar wrote: »

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.

The reason a renter should look on Land registry to see if their are additional charges on the house (apart from the mortgage), is because if these charges are over 1K, the property owner can be forced to sell the house if he doesn't keep to an agreed repayment schedule on these additional charges.

silvercar

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

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.

I'm assuming, as I was advised, that a landlord would not have the residential home mortgage with the same bank as their business accounts or BTL business.

silvercar

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

The reason a renter should look on Land registry to see if their are additional charges on the house (apart from the mortgage), is because if these charges are over 1K, the property owner can be forced to sell the house if he doesn't keep to an agreed repayment schedule on these additional charges.

I agree.

What I was saying was there is no concept of "consent to let" on charges that are not main mortgage borrowing. I have read that if the tenancy was in force before the charge placed, then the tennacy takes precedent, but this won't always be the case as new tenancies are created either with the same or different tenants.

I'm just trying to show that consent to let doesn't always mean the tenant is secure; so the "check for BTL and you will be fine" mantra is giving people a false sense of security.

The bottom line is that if your landlord is up the creek some !!!!!! could fall on you!