Been refused consent to let by Halifax

new_home_owner_3

you will be okay, dont get too stressed about it a lot of people on here are very bitter and dont like anyone getting away with what they have had to pay for, thats why they make it out to be 10 times has bad has what it is.

Out of interest just do a google search landlords house reposessed because of not getting consent to let.

No results you will find house being reposessed because landlord is in arrears with mortgage but nothing about losing a house because of not getting consent to let, so i think you will find this very very very rare.

VIGILANT22

new_home_owner wrote: »

you will be okay, dont get too stressed about it a lot of people on here are very bitter and dont like anyone getting away with what they have had to pay for, thats why they make it out to be 10 times has bad has what it is.

Out of interest just do a google search landlords house reposessed because of not getting consent to let.

No results you will find house being reposessed because landlord is in arrears with mortgage but nothing about losing a house because of not getting consent to let, so i think you will find this very very very rare.[/QUOTE]

Oh of course you would no better and everyone will listen to you...:rotfl:

What was your position again in Financial Services....:) doh!

Vincenzo

beecher2 wrote: »

I wouldn't waste your time going down the mis-selling route as you were told you were applying for consent, rather than being told you would be given consent.

I disagree, the adviser was fully aware of the borrower's intentions and advised the borrower to enter into a product with an ERC (presumably?), that did not meet her needs. If the lender refuses consent, I would make a formal complaint on this basis. I expect consent would be forthcoming at that point!

phlash

new_home_owner wrote: »

you will be okay, dont get too stressed about it a lot of people on here are very bitter and dont like anyone getting away with what they have had to pay for, thats why they make it out to be 10 times has bad has what it is.

Out of interest just do a google search landlords house reposessed because of not getting consent to let.

No results you will find house being reposessed because landlord is in arrears with mortgage but nothing about losing a house because of not getting consent to let, so i think you will find this very very very rare.

Everything you say is speculative.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re-post this:

"Consent. It is essential that you advise and obtain consent to let your property from your mortgage lender, existing insurer and head lessee (for leasehold properties). Failure to obtain written consent from these parties may render your insurance void in the event of a claim. Sadly there have been many instances where buildings claims have been totally rejected because the insurer and or mortgage lender was not advised the property was let."

Source: http://www.arla.co.uk/infosheets/list.aspx?id=3

A lot of people have got away with stuff in the past, agreed. But if her house burnt down, and she still owed the 90% mortgage (probably hundreds of thousands of pounds) where do you reasonably suggest that the OP would get this from to pay the bank back its money? Because, the insurance is invalid it will not pay out!!

Emmajayne - Listen to this guy, and fool be you.

VIGILANT22

Vincenzo wrote: »

I disagree, the adviser was fully aware of the borrower's intentions and advised the borrower to enter into a product with an ERC (presumably?), that did not meet her needs. If the lender refuses consent, I would make a formal complaint on this basis. I expect consent would be forthcoming at that point!

Who said she saw an adviser?...It could very easily have been a Customer Service Adviser as per the norm in banks/bs these days...if this was the case the service she rcvd was based on information only and not advice.

emmajayne1982

The person that I spoke to was a 'senior mortgage advisor' apparently....

phlash

I'm far as I'm concerned, they told you you could apply for consent when under the SVR you couldn't. Maybe, she could have been more forthcoming about likelyhood, but that is not mis-selling, but a question that could have been asked by the OP.

So your hunch that you probably weren't mis-sold is likely to be correct, and frankly a distraction from the issue in hand.

Vincenzo

In my mind, that is no different from an IFA telling you to apply for a residential mortgage, knowing full well you intend to let it out. The OP made her intentions clear.

gozaimasu

Kerry12345 wrote: »

If you live with someone with bad credit, they inherit the bad credit too. You don't inherit their good credit.

Could you clarify on this point please?

Situation A - I want to live with my partner (who has a bad credit rating) and we approach an agency to rent a property through.

Situation B - I want to live with a group of friends, one of whom has a bad credit rating, and we approach an agency to rent a property.

In both situations here, would any of the other tenants "inherit" the bad credit from the individuals concerned? From a personal point of view: I've lived in flatshares with one agency, and the rest from private landlords and I don't think my credit rating has ever been affected.

For the OP, the best suggestion so far has been to "rent" to a family member. I think you should appeal their decision not to grant you permission to let though, as it seems a bit harsh. Perhaps showing them proof that you have secured tenants willing to rent the property will help?

VIGILANT22

[QUOTE=new_home_owner;basically_the_only_person_who_can_force_this_to_happen_emma_is_yourself_by_not_s_paying_the_mortgage,_even shelter say its very rare a banks will throw out paying tenants, even if the homeowner hasnt got consent, theysay this only usually happens when the houseowner is in arrears and not paying the mortgage.

You have a serious problem with comprehension...!!

Since April 2009, lenders are required to send a letter to the property addressed to 'the ocupiers', informing everyone who is living at the property of the date of court hearing. They have to do this within five days of the hearing date being confirmed by the court. You should therefore always open post addressed to 'the occupiers' - do not assume that it is junk mail!
After this, the only notice that you will be given is if the court agrees to give the lender possession. If this happens, the court will send a notice to the landlord and 'any other occupiers', informing them of the date that the bailiffs will be coming to repossess the property. This notice (form N54) may only give a few days' notice of an eviction, so get advice immediately if you receive one.