Been refused consent to let by Halifax

phlash

new_home_owner wrote: »

look if you discuss it in the thread there is no need to make up post's i have never made why would i say it?

the girl herself knows, let her say, but i can tell you now in this thread she has never pmed me ever.

I have to say however soemone did mention you do like to pm to try and pick up cheap btl properties of people who want to rent out, so have you pmed the girl?

Haha - recycling old questions huh? The 'girl' as you keep referring, has already told you I haven't PM'd her.

Anyway.....you are now on IGNORE.....hurray!

new_home_owner_3

PHLASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

new_home_owner_3

phlash wrote: »

Haha - recycling old questions huh? The 'girl' as you keep referring, has already told you I haven't PM'd her.

Anyway.....you are now on IGNORE.....hurray!

Great does that mean i havent got to read any more of the !!!!!! you spout?:T:T

phlash

This is just to do my own profiling on new_home_owner and join in the fun a little....

new_home_owner_3

oh and i thought i was on his ignore list you wasnt lying by any chance?

you know you shouldnt lie being the number one landord?

MissMoneypenny

silvercar wrote: »

If you do let it without consent then make sure you have the correct insurance ie one that allows for tenanted properties.

Not again silvercar. Why do you always try to encourage people to break their contract with their mortgage provider and rent out the properties without Consent to Let?

Again. Don't follow this advice unless you have it signed and in writing, from a senior person at the insururers, that they will definately pay out on a claim even if the mortgage lender has not given their consent to let the property.

MissMoneypenny

emmajayne1982 wrote: »

Or (slightly controversial) do I let it out anyway?

Quite apart form the fact that your tenant will have no legal rights with your mortgage lender for an illegal let, the things that will affect you will be:-

You insurnace may not cover you if you have not got Consent to Let although you might not find that one out until after you make a claim. Insurers are looking for reasons not to pay a claim.

You can be sued by your tenant as you are not able to give them their legal right of quiet enjoyment of the property. Which you can not, as the tenancy agreement is illegal - no permission from the mortgage lender. They can also sue you for their costs if the house is repossessed.

You can get a deception marker on your file if you are found out. It is so easy for anyone to find out now with this Freedom of Information Act, that it doesn't even have to be a tenant that reports you. The deception marker will also be linked to your boyfriend.

The mortgage provider can tell you to repay your mortgage. How easy will you be able to get another mortgage?

The mortgage provider can raise your interest rate. Some even have a clause in now that they can raise your interest rate by x amount if you rent the property but they haven't given their consent for you to do this.

Lenders have to reflect the risk of having a tenant in the property instead of an owner occupier. Owner occupiers tend to make more of an effort to pay their mortgage, as they don't want to lose the roof over their head.

Low loan to value ratio, then the mortgage company has a good chance of getting their money back. People with a lot of their own money in a property, will make a big effort to pay their mortgage repayments even if they can't find a tenant or the tenant doesn't pay their rent. High loan to value, is a big risk to the mortgage lender and they have the choice of either taking that risk and charging a higher interest rate or refusing to take that risk. Interest rates are at a historic low and there is a very real chance of house prices falling again. Plus those that made false claims about their earnings, won't get a fixed deal and will struggle as their mortgage repayments rise as rates do. Falling prices would mean that the lender would not be able to sell your property and recover their money.

People are walking away from their debts all the time and it is this problem that has called this Housing Crisis (or Credit Crunch as the government spin likes to call it). Lenders have to protect themselves as best they can, from more losses.

MissMoneypenny

new_home_owner wrote: »

If the tenants have not checked the landlord has had permission, and the mortgage company decide they want them out they can get them out imediately, thats why you have miss moneypenny going on about it all the time.

The mortgage company would not throw the tenants out if they are paying the mortgage, and they would usually come to a arrangement with the tenants, but that would only be the case if the tenants where not paying the landlord, and if they arent going to pay the landlord why would they pay the mortgage provider?

If mortgage companies allow the tenant to pay them, then they have accepted the tenency and that is not something that they want to do. Mortgage lenders don't want to become landlords- unless the landlord has 100s of mortgages through them and the houses are all in one area - and to sell them would crash the market in that area and cause a massive loss to the lender.

It's not just me going on about tenants checking that someone has consent to let thankfully, the warnings are up on many sites (including solicitors) and in the media.
"Perhaps it is a warning to us all that any landlord could potentially be in financial difficulties and it is better to seize the initiative and to find out as much information as you can beforehand rather than to wait for the credit crunch to catch up with you and take you by surprise."
http://www.langleys.com/Services/Commercial/News-and-Views/HOME-REPOSSESSIONS-BY-A-LANDLORD-S-LENDER.aspx

One letting agent told me just this week that although they never asked for proof of consent to let before, after having someone come in to their shop and try to let a property through them that had a repossessionon order on it, they are now. They don't want to leave themselves open to be sued. The better letting agents will check, the other type will cut corners where they can on whatever they can. I pity the poor landlords that go with the latter as they are the ones that face the fines for their letting agents failings, such as missing 12 monthly gas safety certs.

new_home_owner_3

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

If mortgage companies allow the tenant to pay them, then they have accepted the tenency and that is not something that they want to do. Mortgage lenders don't want to become landlords- unless the landlord has 100s of mortgages through them and the houses are all in one area - and to sell them would crash the market in that area and cause a massive loss to the lender.

It's not just me going on about tenants checking that someone has consent to let thankfully, the warnings are up on many sites (including solicitors) and in the media.
"Perhaps it is a warning to us all that any landlord could potentially be in financial difficulties and it is better to seize the initiative and to find out as much information as you can beforehand rather than to wait for the credit crunch to catch up with you and take you by surprise."
http://www.langleys.com/Services/Commercial/News-and-Views/HOME-REPOSSESSIONS-BY-A-LANDLORD-S-LENDER.aspx

One letting agent told me just this week that although they never asked for proof of consent to let before, after having someone come in to their shop and try to let a property through them that had a repossessionon order on it, they are now. They don't want to leave themselves open to be sued. The better letting agents will check, the other type will cut corners where they can on whatever they can. I pity the poor landlords that go with the latter as they are the ones that face the fines for their letting agents failings, such as missing 12 monthly gas safety certs.

Look you say landlords have been fined, can you just show us one case when this has happened?

emmajayne1982

NeilInglis wrote: »

Halifax originally refused me Consent to Let when I moved in with my girlfriend and let out my flat.

I made an appointment at a different branch, spoke to a different adviser who agreed that my move was out of necessity and she re-applied for me, convinced her superiors that it was out of necessity and it went through fine.

I'd recommend trying a different adviser and hopefully you'll find someone more sympathetic who'll actually look at the case on its merits and not just tick the boxes. My argument was always that 'necessity' was totally subjective.

NeilInglis - Can I ask how long ago this happened. I am considering making another appointment but at the end of the day is it not the Business Assessor that makes the decision regardless of what the advisor in the branch says?

Can I also just clarify that I have not PM'd anyone and that I have no intention of letting it out without consent now. What I am trying to do now is fight the decision or look at the other option they gave me of putting it on the market for a month and if it does not sell then re-apply for consent to let.