Tenants

lorcan64

Is it a travesty

Senior_Paper_Monitor

Yes, probably insist on a surcharge but possibly call in mortgage, yes but there is very little action that can/will be taken against them (except by the tenant).

Biggest risk is at the point any insurance claim becomes necessary (or apparently if a jealous ex dobbs you in !)

Yorkie1

Although a decent LA should ask the LL about consent to let, ultimately it is the LL's responsibility to obtain the right consents / mortgage product.

As SPM said, consequences from the lender could bean additional fee, or a raise in interest rates, or change to a BTL mortgage - with potential difficulties if the relevant LTV & income criteria aren't met - or a demand for the mortgage to be repaid immediately. The risk of the lender finding out used to be quite low, but recently on here there have been references to lenders using the credit agencies to monitor peoples' changes of address and thus finding out more often.

The insurance issue is vital. If domestic insurance is retained and a claim has to be made, it's likely that the policy will not pay out. Imagine if it was a serious fire in which the tenant was injured and the house mostly destroyed. That's a large financial bill to meet personally.

MissMoneypenny

Yorkie1 wrote: »

Although a decent LA should ask the LL about consent to let, ultimately it is the LL's responsibility to obtain the right consents / mortgage product.

Landlords responsibility to get Consent to Let from their mortgage lender but it's in the letting agents interest to see proof of this permission. If the house gets repossessed, the tenant will stand a better chance of getting compensation from the person with some money i.e. the letting agency. Without Consent to Let, the letting agency have taken by deception.

I would worry that if a letting agency didn't ask for something as important as Consent to Let, what other important things will they forget to do that the landlord is legally liable for?

Yorkie1 wrote: »

The risk of the lender finding out used to be quite low, but recently on here there have been references to lenders using the credit agencies to monitor peoples' changes of address and thus finding out more often.

Experian offer Hunter as a service for mortgage lenders, to trace those who have failed to comply with their mortgage conditions such as informing them of any changes.

Yorkie1 wrote: »

The insurance issue is vital. If domestic insurance is retained and a claim has to be made, it's likely that the policy will not pay out. Imagine if it was a serious fire in which the tenant was injured and the house mostly destroyed. That's a large financial bill to meet personally.

Even if you get a landlords insurance, make sure that you get it in writing from them that they know you haven't got Consent to Let, but that they will still pay out in full in the event of a claim. Insurers seem to look for ways to avoid paying out.

lorcan64

...... ......

EclipsedMind

lorcan64 wrote: »

The house in question is in her name alone btw so nothing to do with me technically.

I think you might be missing something here - depending on your precise situation it may well be that her property needs to be in the pot with all the other marrital assets and you will get a share during ancillary relief.

If they are trying to take you to the cleaners and being Aholes then make sure your solicitor stands up for you and properly protects your interests. Pretty much anything with a reasonable value should be in that pot and you should get something at the end of this sorry business.

EM

lorcan64

..........