Consent to let

MissMoneypenny

nollag2006 wrote: »

Might be easiest just to ring your insurer or broker, and ask them the question directly.

If you have landlords insurance, rather than the simple domestic residential coverage, there shouldnt be a problem.

A landlord on here said that her insurer was fine without Consent to Let and named her insurer. I wrote to that same insurer and asked them to confirm in writing that they would pay out on a claim if I didn't have Consent to Let, and the insurer didn't do it. All they said was that they may have to pay the insurance claim to the mortgage lender.

What people say to get your money and what they do when you want to claim from them, is two different things.

MissMoneypenny

G_M wrote: »

Major problem then is for your tenant if you default and they repossess. If the mortgage lender has not granted Consent they do not have to take over the tenancy, they can evict the tenant.

Major problems for the landlord and letting agent too in that happens, as the tenant can sue them.

I would have serious doubts about using a letting agent that didn't check for something as major as your Consent to Let; what else will they forget/not know, they are required to do, that the landlord is liable for?

clutton_2

theartfullodger wrote: »

'spose the "idea" of re-mortgaging on a new B2L mortgage, probably bunging in some more money due to LTV guidelines, has been considered and is being pursued??

A bit of a radical idea I grant, sticking to the rules....

Artful - why do you have to be so unpleasant so much of the time ?

MissMoneypenny

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Your the one taking the risk. As if the property burns down you've still got the mortgage and potentially no way of rebuilding it. So only have a building plot to sell.

I have just had an email from someone who rented out their house and their electrics have caused a house fire in one room, with another room with smoke damage. Fortunately no one was injured.

When he put a claim in on his landlords insurance, the first thing they asked for was his proof of Consent to Let. He gave them that, and now the insurers are looking for other ways to not pay out or not pay out in full, on his claim.

Now he has tenants with only cold water and two rooms they can't use and an insurance company that is looking for ways not to pay!

bris

Consent to let is a civil matter between the lender and the borrower. The tenant is a third party and will only see a downside if the property is repossed.
The LL will still have to do everything else by the book, LL insurance, (make sure the insurer knows the truth) safety certs etc. Despite what some of the posters on here think it is not illegal or even immoral to let out a house just because a lender hasn't given consent. If the lender finds out then the ball is in their court to take what ever measures they see fit.
In the OP's case it could even be argued that they do know and don't care as long as they get this 2% fee.

MissMoneypenny

clutton wrote: »

Artful - why do you have to be so unpleasant so much of the time ?

Perhaps it's because Artful is one of the decent landlords on here?

clutton_2

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Perhaps it's because Artful is one of the decent landlords on here?

so decent landlords are Unpleasant ?

Thrugelmir

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I
When he put a claim in on his landlords insurance, the first thing they asked for was his proof of Consent to Let. He gave them that, and now the insurers are looking for other ways to not pay out or not pay out in full, on his claim.

The insurers are merely checking that the Landlord has taken all neccessary actions and reasonable precautions. BTL is a business and should be viewed as such.

Reading these boards many treat BTL as a hobby. Taking a view that it will never happen to "me". The issue is when an event does occur, then the outcome can be very costly.

Werdnal

Artful is not unpleasant. He speaks the truth and isn't afraid to call it as he sees it, which is quite refreshing in our society.

Perhaps those on the receiving end might see it as unpleasant, but it is also unpleasant to be on the receiving end of a LL who has no respect for the rules, and sees fit to cut corners to increase their personal gain, sometimes at the expense of tenants.


Back to the OP, I cannot really understand what your mortgage company are saying. Its a bit like being pregnant - you either are or your aren't - its not a nearly situation?

TBH, I too would question a LA allowing a let without formal written consent, and most savvy tenants are also aware of the need to ask to see the written permission to.

I would wait until you receive the mortgage company's letter and come back and tell us exactly what it says.

theartfullodger

clutton wrote: »

so decent landlords are Unpleasant ?

- you'd have to ask my tenants - on both counts!!!

Cheers!