Opportunity to move to oz but mortgage company wont allow me to let property

Thrugelmir

socrates wrote: »

Make sure you pay your mortgage on time, perform all your legal obligations as a LL and it is highly unlikely that anything bad will happen.

I really do not care what the scare mongers say - that is the long and short of it!

Providing you can afford to take the risk that the insurance company will refuse to pay out. Many professional letting agencies now require evidence as well that the owner has the lenders permission.

Thrugelmir

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

For example tenants would be advised to deduct tax from any payments made directly to you as a foreign resident.

I would suggest using a managing agent as maintaining a property and collecting rent isn't a practical proposition from the other side of the world.

Though this has considerable cost implications and may change the financial feasability.

socrates

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Providing you can afford to take the risk that the insurance company will refuse to pay out. Many professional letting agencies now require evidence as well that the owner has the lenders permission.

Not relevant to the point made.

Which was that Insurance Companies inform lenders what type of insurance a property has.

As for LA's the OP can pick one that does not ask.

Why would insurers not pay out?

Too much scare mongering here and I have not seen one post to back up any of the claims made - in particular where a mortgage is being serviced properly.

Thrugelmir

socrates wrote: »

Why would insurers not pay out?

The basic fact is because it would be in breach of the policy terms and conditions. If you haven't got the lenders permission to let then a standard Landlords insurance policy is technically void.

GMS

socrates wrote: »

Not relevant to the point made.

Which was that Insurance Companies inform lenders what type of insurance a property has.

As for LA's the OP can pick one that does not ask.

Why would insurers not pay out?

Too much scare mongering here and I have not seen one post to back up any of the claims made - in particular where a mortgage is being serviced properly.

It may not happen but the insurer will usually tell the lender of a change of policy. If this happens after a decline of consent to let then there may be questions asked.

Insurers will not pay out for something which was not covered so either way renting without consent is a dangerous game.

Clearly it is up to the OP to do what he thinks he needs to but to condone fraud is not really helpful.

John_Pierpoint

The only real issue (other than that owner occupied mortgages are usually cheaper) is the status of the tenant - should the owner/landlord default on the mortgage - things could go wrong; it is unlikely but it could happen (eg the property has a fire).
You might have family members who could manage the letting for you - in my limited experience agents tend to have their eye on the next renewal fee rather than the behaviour of the tenant.
Keeping the lines of communication open with the tenant(s) is the key - ones that don't "complain" (ie notify the landlord of his responsibilities) are as much of a risk as those who do (eg "The radiator is leaking but it is dripping down through the floor boards, who cares, until the boiler furs up and we fall through the dry rot?")

Running, what is in effect a second home, can be a real hassle; especially over Xmas - New Year (when the agency has gone on holiday anyway?).

Remember tenants are wonderful people, just as long as they pay the rent, your house and furniture are just bricks and mortar and sticks of wood.

silvercar

The basic fact is because it would be in breach of the policy terms and conditions. If you haven't got the lenders permission to let then a standard Landlords insurance policy is technically void.

The policy conditions of a standard landlord's building insurance policy require that tenants are renting under an AST. Distinguish between the conditions of a mortgage - which would be given for owner occupation and the conditions of insurance that require the landlord declare that the property is occupied under a contract.

Most insurers register the interest of the mortgage company on the certificate of insurance, added to which existing insurers often notify lenders that they have ceased to be covering the property. So it is sensible to expect the lender to ask for a copy of the insurance.

Insurers will not pay out for something which was not covered so either way renting without consent is a dangerous game

Very dangerous to insure on an owner occupation basis.

GuidoT

socrates wrote: »

I have never heard of an insurance company informing a bank that landlord insurance has been taken out and thats in 20 years of BTL.

FD are very inflexible when it comes to Conset to Let - they will never budge.

You need to make a call as you see best and if you have someone in place you can trust to run the show while you are away then do as you please.

The people on this board do not pay your bills and we are talking about real money here.

My opinion is the banks never came to us for consent for anything when they screwed us over and we are still paying for it!

Make sure you pay your mortgage on time, perform all your legal obligations as a LL and it is highly unlikely that anything bad will happen.

I really do not care what the scare mongers say - that is the long and short of it!

Good points - well made.

Fuzzyness

Pocket_AAs wrote: »

Do you even have to tell them??

Can you not move and rent the property out?? As long as you pay them the mortgage.

(not trying to be dishonest although I have given that impression...)

they are issues over this in terms of the tenancy agreement that the tenant will have and the rights that they have to live in the property. a proper buy to let mortgage or consent to let from your lender would cover off this point.

socrates

GMS wrote: »

It may not happen but the insurer will usually tell the lender of a change of policy. If this happens after a decline of consent to let then there may be questions asked.

Insurers will not pay out for something which was not covered so either way renting without consent is a dangerous game.

Clearly it is up to the OP to do what he thinks he needs to but to condone fraud is not really helpful.

What change of policy?

I go to a broker and tell him I want a NEW policy - a Landlords Policy - are you telling me that insurance company contact the lender?

Why are you not covered - the policy is specifically for rentals

Are you trying to drum up business for yourself?