Conset to let

Strings

The facts

We are moving to New Zealand mid Sept and as a result we want to let our flat out.

We have just taken a remortgage out with the Woolwich on a two year fix which commenced in July 10

Before consent to let is able to be granted we need to have had the mortgage for more than 6 months. Which means that we can not let the property out until January 2011.

So, while we should have sorted this out before we took the mortgage, any ideas on any options we could have. We are basically moving back so that we can have our first child there and to be with family.

Comments much appreciated,
Thanks

Cannon_Fodder

You have already got tenants coming in, in September, so why bother asking?

Especially as you already have a cunning plan for avoiding the need for official consent-to-let...

Strings wrote: »

Looking back I am glad we didn't sell as the net gain pcm is quite good imo

Strings wrote: »

You raise and interesting point really, we tried to sell our place a few months ago but had no offers what’s so ever. It was over priced but we thought we’d attempt to sell anyway.
Cut a long story short, we have no remortgaged and our mortgage payments have drop by £300 a month to £600.
In Sept we have tenants coming in and the rent PCM is £1175. It is perverse because if they bought it they could pay significant less than renting, but as they don’t have the deposit they are stuck.

Strings wrote: »

Easy way to get around the consent to let is to fabricate a letter from the bank stating that you have it. The tenant can not access your information at the bank and therefore will never be able to verify it

Strings

Yep indeed that is one way of getting around it, but to be honest we want to do it properly and this is mainly for insurance purposes, rather than for the benefit of the tenant and/or the mortgage company

somethingcorporate

Strings wrote: »

Yep indeed that is one way of getting around it, but to be honest we want to do it properly and this is mainly for insurance purposes, rather than for the benefit of the tenant and/or the mortgage company

Most people would like to do it legally rather than committing fraud. I feel sorry for your poor tenants having a landlord like you.

Thrugelmir

Strings wrote: »

Yep indeed that is one way of getting around it, but to be honest we want to do it properly and this is mainly for insurance purposes, rather than for the benefit of the tenant and/or the mortgage company

As an observation.

There's no half way house. Either you act professionally or you don't.

I hope your tenants don't default on the rent payments while your away or vacate without notice. As New Zealand is a long way away to resolve matters......;)

Vincenzo

Ethics and legal issues aside (as that is your only option unless you leave the property vacant until January), there is nothing to stop you taking out Landlords Buildings Insurance. The issue of consent is a separate one. Check the poilcy docs to ensure this is the case but I have never noticed a clause to say failure to have consent to let from your mortgage lender voids your insurance policy. Then let it and request consent in January.

As a further observation, you must have been aware of the restrictions on consent by the Woolwich, so why remortgage with them and put yoruself in this position?

Strings

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Most people would like to do it legally rather than committing fraud. I feel sorry for your poor tenants having a landlord like you.

Fair enough that you have an opinion, but what am I actually doing wrong that is unfair.?

Strings

Vincenzo wrote: »

Ethics and legal issues aside (as that is your only option unless you leave the property vacant until January), there is nothing to stop you taking out Landlords Buildings Insurance. The issue of consent is a separate one. Check the poilcy docs to ensure this is the case but I have never noticed a clause to say failure to have consent to let from your mortgage lender voids your insurance policy. Then let it and request consent in January.

As a further observation, you must have been aware of the restrictions on consent by the Woolwich, so why remortgage with them and put yoruself in this position?

I might investigate that clause actually and see how I stand legally. I would suggest in the fine print there must be some notication required.

As for the mortgage, correct this is what we should have done and to be honest we were just going to let it out regardless. We were aware of the consent to let option, but did not realise we needed to have the mortgage for six months before asking for it. So yes our fault for not investigating fully.

Anyway, I wonder what would happen if we just told the bank what we were doing.

Strings

Thrugelmir wrote: »

As an observation.

There's no half way house. Either you act professionally or you don't.

I hope your tenants don't default on the rent payments while your away or vacate without notice. As New Zealand is a long way away to resolve matters......;)

Indeed it is, but it is a punt we have to take I am afraid.

Cannon_Fodder

Don't get your Landlord insurance from Directline;

http://www.directlineforbusiness.co.uk/residentialproperty/landlord-insurance-articles/consent-to-let-faq.htm

"If your personal circumstances have changed and you've decided to rent out your home then it's essential that you obtain consent to let from certain organisations and individuals."

Who do you need to get permission from?

• Your mortgage provider.
• Your Landlord Insurance company.
• Your head lessee of freehold (if you have a leasehold premise).
• Your co-owner, if any.

Vincenzo

Strings wrote: »

Anyway, I wonder what would happen if we just told the bank what we were doing.

It might be worth contacting them to say you have decided to go abroad and request that you can obtain consent earlier. They may consider it in these circumstances. After all if you played by their rules you would be financially worse off and therefore more likely to default on the mortgage payments.