Land registry report for a place I'm viewing

Bengal_tiger

I'm hoping for a quick reply as I'm about to view a property which is available immediately. After I found my current one is on the point of repossession I'm trying to be a bit more canny this time. I am sure there will be a limit to what the estate agent will know or be prepared to tell me so I've ordered the report from the Land Registry for the property, and beneath the property address, the report shows two addresses as the owner's address, one of them the property address and the other a different address. The LL only bought the property that he is letting 18 months ago.

Does this sound like a normal buy to let arrangement? Is it worth pursuing the LL or agent for proof of consent to let before I sign anything?

I'm not sure about this place yet anyway as it's in a nice area but is in a block of flats with a shared entrance.

Bananamana

Is there a mortgage on the new one in the charges register? If not its a moot point.

Yes the landlord's address wont usually be the same as the property address.

silvercar

A buy-to-let mortgage would show a different address for the landlord, a consent to let on a residential mortgage could show anything - either the property address or a different address, it may even be that a landlord could register a different address with the land registry without letting the mortgage lender know!

Bengal_tiger

I got the estate agent to ask the landlord for either proof of ownership or consent to let. Apparently he owns it and there is no mortgage, so the agent has asked the landlord to provide an email from his solicitor who he bought the house through to say that it is all paid for. I haven't seen this email. Is this sufficient proof do you think?

Maybe I'm being overly suspicious because of what happened last time, but I would have thought that anyone could fabricate an email from a solicitor.

Having said that the land registry record states "no lender", which suggests it IS owned outright, unless it's been stolen... So I'll probably go for it if he seems like a decent guy when I meet him, unless anyone here can say if this sounds dodgy in any way.

silvercar

Having said that the land registry record states "no lender", which suggests it IS owned outright,

If there is no lender then there is no permission to obtain, no consent to let or BTL needed.

The landlord may have bought with a mortgage that has now been paid off, something the solicitor wouldn't be aware of.

Bengal_tiger

silvercar wrote: »

If there is no lender then there is no permission to obtain, no consent to let or BTL needed.

The landlord may have bought with a mortgage that has now been paid off, something the solicitor wouldn't be aware of.

That's what I was thinking - Why would he use a solicitor to provide that proof, apart from it looking official? Shouldn't the proof come from the mortgage lender? Or if, as the agent claims, he bought it outright then is there something else he could show to that effect that would prove that there isn't a mortgage?

I don't want to keep pressing him if this is kosher, as I'm sure he finds this a nuisance but I don't think an email from a solicitor proves anything. Are you saying that I already have enough evidence of his owning the place?

Bengal_tiger

B.U.M.P.

(for a reply to my last question about proof of ownership)

silvercar

On the deeds it will say of there is a charge on the property and who the lender is.

No charge=no lender= no mortgage= no consent to let needed.

Once you've got the deeds they will say the name of the owner, if you want proof the landlord is the owner you could ask to see his passport or other ID but presumeably you will be paying the rent into a bank account of the same name as the name on the deeds.