Been refused consent to let by Halifax

VIGILANT22

G51shopaholic wrote: »

you need to be careful what you do.

I worked in a Letting Agency for over 7yrs and we always had to get a copy of the permission to let from the landlords mortgage provider.

This was to protect our company and protect the tenants that we moved in. You also have to have specialist insurance cover via a Landlords Policy. Otherwise your buildings & contents insurance is null and void.

If you intend to move to Aberdeen you could consider letting it to a friend or family member - again if things don't work out for you in Aberdeen you would need somewhere to move back to.

You may not like what Vigilant22 is saying but he/she is right - although a little blunt it is good advise.

If Halifax had given permission to let then they would also have been entitled to a % of the rental income. They would also have switched you to a different rate for "commercial" mortgages as the property would not have been your main residency.

then you have the Inland Revenue etc.

It's not just a case of finding a tenant, you have gas safety checks, electrical safety checks, landlord registration fees, etc etc.

Thanks for yr post and added to yr comments the worse scenario is:

"If you let without permission, the lender may have the right to repossess the property, evict the tenants thereby leaving yourself open to an action by the tenant for lack of peaceable enjoyment of the property."


and sivercar you contribute regularly to this forum...I didn't know this forum is now somewhere can come and learn how to cover their backs and scam the lenders Quote: If you do let it without consent then make sure you have the correct insurance ie one that allows for tenanted properties.....shame on you ...

madeupname1

G51shopaholic wrote: »

I worked in a Letting Agency for over 7yrs and we always had to get a copy of the permission to let from the landlords mortgage provider.

Interesting, and no doubt good practice. However, I have never had an EA ask me for a copy of the permission received from my mortgage provider and I have dealt with quite a few in my area.

G51shopaholic wrote: »

landlord registration fees, etc etc.

What do these refer to? I know there has been some talk about a register of landlords but I didn't think that was in place yet.

VIGILANT22

Private Rented Sector Regulations

some common regulations in the PRS:

· Gas and electricity: Boilers must be checked annually by a Gas Safe Register listed tradesman, who will issue a Gas Safety Certificate.
· Tenants should be given a copy when they begin the tenancy and within 28 days of an annual check. All electrical items and fittings should be checked regularly as landlords could be liable if a tenant is harmed by an electrical item provided.
· Fire safety: If the property was built after June 1992, tenants must have an adequate means of escape and a mains-operated inter-connected smoke alarm should be fitted on every floor.
· If the property is a furnished let, furniture and furnishings made after 1950 must meet fire resistance regulations. The National Landlords Association has produced a Fire Safety Logbook.
· Regulator Reform (Fire Safety) Order: Landlords who own flats in a block are required to liaise with the managing agents and other homeowners to ensure that a fire risk assessment of the common parts is carried out.
· Energy Performance Certificates: From October 2008 it became a legal requirement for landlords to make an Energy Performance Certificate of the property available to prospective tenants when letting a property. Failure to do so can result in a £200 fine and the landlord being prevented from marketing the property until the EPC is obtained.
· Tenancy Deposit Protection: From 6 April 2007, all deposits (for rent up to £25,000 per annum) taken by landlords and letting agents for Assured Shorthold Tenancies in England and Wales, must be protected by a tenancy deposit protection scheme.

CLAPTON

G51shopaholic wrote: »

you need to be careful what you do.

I worked in a Letting Agency for over 7yrs and we always had to get a copy of the permission to let from the landlords mortgage provider.

This was to protect our company and protect the tenants that we moved in. You also have to have specialist insurance cover via a Landlords Policy. Otherwise your buildings & contents insurance is null and void.

If you intend to move to Aberdeen you could consider letting it to a friend or family member - again if things don't work out for you in Aberdeen you would need somewhere to move back to.

You may not like what Vigilant22 is saying but he/she is right - although a little blunt it is good advise.

If Halifax had given permission to let then they would also have been entitled to a % of the rental income. They would also have switched you to a different rate for "commercial" mortgages as the property would not have been your main residency.

then you have the Inland Revenue etc.

It's not just a case of finding a tenant, you have gas safety checks, electrical safety checks, landlord registration fees, etc etc.

can you quote any reference for the view that if Halifax gave permission to let then they would be entitled to a % of the rental value?

CLAPTON

emmajayne1982 wrote: »

Thanks madeupname1. I have actually been offered a better paid job in Aberdeen so it would in fact be a better situation for me financially.
When they call me - which will be later on today/tomorrow I will ask what would happen if I rent out anyway.

I would be cautious about asking what they would do if you ignore their decision.. a little bit confrontational and there's still lots to play for.

I think you should take the view that this is not an optional move from choice but a forced move to enable you to have a family life with your long term partner.

CLAPTON

VIGILANT22 wrote: »

[QUOTE=silvercarSome people have personal axes to grind against anyone letting their property.

I have no axe to grind..in fact I am an investor myself with a portfolio...what I do have "an axe to grind" with is irresponsible borrowers..and people thinking they can do what they like with a mortgaged property ...in this case 90% of it is owned by the bank...

the bank DOESNOT own 90% of the house; in the same way they DONOT pay 90% of the council tax or utilies or insurance or maintenance.

They merely have a charge on the property to secure their money.
Even if their T&Cs are broken that would not allow them to repossess the house but only to demand repayment of their money which would at most simply require a remortgage.

phlash

I can sympathise with your situation, but it is a risk you take when owning a property.

If you had to move and you were sitting on a whopping gain, you wouldn't have an issue and you would quite happily sell.

The risk of buying is to the upside and the downside - you take on these risks to enjoy the freedom of your own house over renting. If you can't let it out (which your lender is being perfectly reasonable as you only have 90% LTV), and you want to move you have to sell it for what you can achieve, and accept the downside.

It may not be what you want, but houses should not be viewed as a commodity when purchasing to live in as a home. If you do view it as a commodity, then you made a poor choice keeping hold of the asset over the last two years.

VIGILANT22

CLAPTON wrote: »

VIGILANT22 wrote: »

the bank DOESNOT own 90% of the house; in the same way they DONOT pay 90% of the council tax or utilies or insurance or maintenance.

They merely have a charge on the property to secure their money.
Even if their T&Cs are broken that would not allow them to repossess the house but only to demand repayment of their money which would at most simply require a remortgage.

So you think recalling is a loan is no big deal and rmtg would be easy...:)?.... Boxer and Hunter come to mind.....

CLAPTON

VIGILANT22 wrote: »

CLAPTON wrote: »

So you think recalling is a loan is no big deal and rmtg would be easy...:)?.... Boxer and Hunter come to mind.....

reread my post
I didn't say recalling in the loan is no big deal or that remortgaging would be easy

but nothing like the implications of saying they own 90% of the property which is absurd

VIGILANT22

If they really "owned" the property they would have no charge over it or a reason to request permission to rent....