Conset to let

Vincenzo

Strings wrote: »

I cant open it at work due to web blocks, but I think I have read the article.

The insurance bit:

A final word on insurance

I warned you earlier that you must inform your lender if you want to rent out your home. This requirement is not easily enforceable, and while we would not advise breaking your mortgage contract, the fact is, many borrowers do - and get away with it.
Having said that, you must, must, must let your buildings insurer know if you let your property out to tenants. Failure to do so will invalidate your policy. Now imagine what would happen if one of your tenants accidently burned your house down? Your insurance policy would be useless and you would be liable for all the costs of repairing the damage yourself.
Don't forget if you happen to have bought your buildings insurance from your lender it will be tricky to keep that fact that you no longer occupy the property under wraps.

silvercar

The purpose of gaining consent to let is to protect your tenants from eviction in the (rare) event that the property was repossessed within the fixed term of the tenancy agreement. If you are upto date with your mortgage payments and have an agreed consent to let from January, I can't see what the issue is. If you did fall into arrears it would be way past January before your lender were at a repossession hearing in court, by which time the consent to let would be in force.

Strings

silvercar wrote: »

The purpose of gaining consent to let is to protect your tenants from eviction in the (rare) event that the property was repossessed within the fixed term of the tenancy agreement. If you are upto date with your mortgage payments and have an agreed consent to let from January, I can't see what the issue is. If you did fall into arrears it would be way past January before your lender were at a repossession hearing in court, by which time the consent to let would be in force.

Ok, there is a very slim chance that we would ever fall behind, if we had too we'd make the payments using our savings or income earnt in New Zealand.

The consent to let really is for insurance purposes, such that if the tenants had a fire, we would want the building and its contents to be covered.

To my mind not having consent could potentially make landlords insurance null and void.

Strings

Vincenzo wrote: »

The insurance bit:

A final word on insurance

I warned you earlier that you must inform your lender if you want to rent out your home. This requirement is not easily enforceable, and while we would not advise breaking your mortgage contract, the fact is, many borrowers do - and get away with it.
Having said that, you must, must, must let your buildings insurer know if you let your property out to tenants. Failure to do so will invalidate your policy. Now imagine what would happen if one of your tenants accidently burned your house down? Your insurance policy would be useless and you would be liable for all the costs of repairing the damage yourself.
Don't forget if you happen to have bought your buildings insurance from your lender it will be tricky to keep that fact that you no longer occupy the property under wraps.

We'll notify the insurance company and get landlords insurance. This is a fact.

Senior_Paper_Monitor

Exactly as Vincenzo says above (and while I am certainly unhappy with the 'advice' you were handing out previously in the posts revealed by Mr Fodder [forging a letter from a bank!] I will try to restrict my further comment to 'the real world' and your actual position).

Ensure you get the correct insurance, but be aware that 1) some insurers will check up on permission to let 2) if you change insurance cover with the current insurer they may inform the lender if their interests are noted on current insurance 3) if your main or anciliary bankers are related to the lender they may advise them of your move, which will presumably be obvious to them .... now calculate your chances of getting away with it.

Many people do what you are doing and get away with it - and frankly its no henious crime - but some get caught (have a read around this forum for a start).

Is anyone getting shortchanged here ? In practice the lender who should have a greater return for their greater statistical risk (have no doubt it is a greater risk), but few people have 'sympathy' for the banks (and I can't say I love them myself)! Certainly the future tenant who is apparently paying a full market rate and should perhaps expect a full market product in return (see Silvercar's comment) but if you are confident that they won't suffer then presumably no need to lose sleep over it.

Strings

Senior_Paper_Monitor wrote: »

Exactly as Vincenzo says above (and while I am certainly unhappy with the 'advice' you were handing out previously in the posts revealed by Mr Fodder [forging a letter from a bank!] I will try to restrict my further comment to 'the real world' and your actual position).

Ensure you get the correct insurance, but be aware that 1) some insurers will check up on permission to let 2) if you change insurance cover with the current insurer they may inform the lender if their interests are noted on current insurance 3) if your main or anciliary bankers are related to the lender they may advise them of your move, which will presumably be obvious to them .... now calculate your chances of getting away with it.

Many people do what you are doing and get away with it - and frankly its no henious crime - but some get caught (have a read around this forum for a start).

Is anyone getting shortchanged here ? In practice the lender who should have a greater return for their greater statistical risk (have no doubt it is a greater risk), but few people have 'sympathy' for the banks (and I can't say I love them myself)! Certainly the future tenant who is apparently paying a full market rate and should perhaps expect a full market product in return (see Silvercar's comment) but if you are confident that they won't suffer then presumably no need to lose sleep over it.

Yes my forging comment was a flippant remark more than anything.
At present there is no link between our mortgage provider and the current contents insurance provider. The property is in a block of flats and the residents association provides the buildings insurance.

Thanks for the advice / comment