Been refused consent to let by Halifax

new_home_owner_3

phlash wrote: »

For goodness sake, I will repost this for the third time, maybe you'll get lucky and understand the consequences when you skim over it for a third time. Your post above is now the most stupid post EVER, considering what you should know after having read the previous umpteen posts.

Third time lucky, this time please answer my query rather than avoiding it. :T

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."

Ive read your post's and the others i know what they say is right and what is wrong, it may be wrong in the banks terms and it may be wrong to you, i know a lot of people who rent their properties who do not have consent to let and im sure a lot of people on here know people who have rented without getting consent to let.

Now you can state things that may happen but you have yet to come up with any evidence to say a landlord has lost their property for not getting consent to let, there are load of stories about landlords not paying there mortgages and the banks reposessing now this person would be very unlucky if they was the first to get their house reposessed wouldnt they, especially if they keep the payments up.

Now the only person who will be in a mess will be the tenants if the emma doesnt pay her mortgage but i dont think she will, she has more chance of missing payments if she has to borrow more to keep it to rent, take a chance.

plhash can say what he wants wheres the proof????

He keeps on going about tenants should know if the landlord has consent to let incase of this and that, thats it exactly its a lot of ifs and buts and no one on here has heard it happen, unless the landlord has not paid the mortgage.

VIGILANT22

So that would be your defence....Nobody on MSE has heard of it happen and a few of us said it was ok.....

We always have and always will have people who push boundaries, that's why our prisons are full.............

new_home_owner_3

having searched the web all day looking for people losing their house for not getting consent to let. i have came to this conclusion this is my own personal opinion and im not tellin the other person what to do.

best case scenario you get good tenants pay your mortgage get everything else in place like insurance and gas certificates, you pay your mortgage and you dont hear anything else from them.

Worse case scenario you pay all the extra money to get consent to let have tenants who do not pay you and you fail to pay the mortgage the bank will still reposess and it wont make any difference other than you have had to borrow this and that for the pleaseure of the bank saying you can rent, and whilst they give you consent they add 1 or 2 percent so you can pay them 1 or 200 pound a month for the pleasure.

if loads of people had been reposessed for renting without consent to let i would say no, but no one on here and no where on the interent have i ever heard of any landlord being reposessed forsor soley not having consent to let.

Im not going to pot on here anymore no one has any evidence, even on the shelter website in the first sentance its say tenants your house MAY be reposessed if you landlord goes into arrears with their mortgage.

madeupname1

VIGILANT22 wrote: »

What's the point if it won't sell?

ask foxtons.

new_home_owner_3

VIGILANT22 wrote: »

So that would be your defence....Nobody on MSE has heard of it happen and a few of us said it was ok.....

We always have and always will have people who push boundaries, that's why our prisons are full.............

I personally dont think it will happen if it hasnt happend yet, you seem to know a lot can you give any examples?

new_home_owner_3

/@ vigilant22, i take it you cant find anything either, thats a surprise especialy from some one who knows so much about it...........

VIGILANT22

I do know a lot...and I would be most certainly breaking DP if I disclosed details....to rent without consent is mortgage fraud...end of

Mortgage fraud occurs where individuals defraud a financial institution or private lender through the mortgage process.
The definition of fraud in the Fraud Act 2006 covers fraud by false representation and by failure to disclose information where there is a legal duty to disclose. False representations can be made explicitly or implicitly and may occur even where you know only that the representation might be misleading or untrue.
The value of a mortgage obtained through fraud is the proceeds of crime. Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, you risk committing a money laundering offence if you acquire, use, have possession of, enter into an arrangement with respect to, or transfer this criminal property.

new_home_owner_3

lol:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

VIGILANT22

[QUOTE=new_home_owner

You may be surprised to learn I really don't care what you think....What I do care about is you "spouting" off rubbish on a forum.......

new_home_owner_3

VIGILANT22 wrote: »

I do know a lot...and I would be most certainly breaking DP if I disclosed details....to rent without consent is mortgage fraud...end of

Mortgage fraud occurs where individuals defraud a financial institution or private lender through the mortgage process.
The definition of fraud in the Fraud Act 2006 covers fraud by false representation and by failure to disclose information where there is a legal duty to disclose. False representations can be made explicitly or implicitly and may occur even where you know only that the representation might be misleading or untrue.
The value of a mortgage obtained through fraud is the proceeds of crime. Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, you risk committing a money laundering offence if you acquire, use, have possession of, enter into an arrangement with respect to, or transfer this criminal property.

wheres your evidence? shes not trying to obtain funds read your law retard