Consent to let

Mortgagedude

Deep thanks for all useful, on topic posts. Regrets to all debate stifling people with too much time on their hands.

I will ring around a few more insurers as the last one just panicked and cold transferred me to another broker, need to speak to the underwriters really.

The letting agent does have a check box on their exhaustive agreement where LL agrees they will handle consent to let and they are quite a large local franchise.

Should recieve the letter next week so will be able to make a more informed decision then.

MissMoneypenny

clutton wrote: »

so decent landlords are Unpleasant ?

Only to the bad landlords.

Thrugelmir

Mortgagedude wrote: »

What they have said is that they won't be cancelling my agreement or expecting me to pay off the mortgage. Instead they will charge me an ongoing unauthorised letting fee of 2%.

Who is your lender?

What is current interest rate and what product do you have?

MissMoneypenny

theartfullodger wrote: »

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

Cheers!

You come across as one of the most decent and knowledgeable landlords on here. I would say your tenants are very lucky to have found a landlord like you.

If only all were like you, then there wouldn't be any need to keep bringing in these laws to stop the bad landlords; or for all of us to have to finance councils who employ staff to take action against bad landlords and bad letting agents.

Your posts and posting style are appreciated by the good landlords and are a great help to tenants.

theartfullodger

Aw, shucks, I'm embarrassed!!!

I try to stick to the rules - and no doubt fail from time2time. Nope I'm not all sweetness & light, I've taken court action against tenants/ex-tenants inexplicably not sticking to their agreements (eg to pay rent..) on 6 occasions so far - and recovered over £6k to date..

And I'm still learning...

jimjames

What concerns me from the initial post is that tenants are moving in next week (or presumably Expecting to do so) and at this late stage the LL still doesn't know if he will be going ahead if the mortgage company do not come back with suitable info.

If I was the tenant or the LA then I would be mightily unhappy with that situation.

My suggestion - sort the mortgage CTL and insurance before even showing tenants around if you are unsure if you will go ahead or not.

franklee

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.

Yes although that may not be worst case as there could be tenants injured or killed with no insurance to pay out leaving the landlord exposed to the tenant's claim. Another major downside for a tenant, if the landlord is unable to pay up.

Mortgagedude wrote: »

I will ring around a few more insurers as the last one just panicked and cold transferred me to another broker, need to speak to the underwriters really.

Interesting I hope you will come back and tell us how you get on obtaining landlord's insurance that's still valid having declared the lack of consent to let. Don't forget to ask about the points MissMoneypenny raised in post #12 about if they pay an insurance claim to the mortgage lender. It goes without saying you want any reassurances they make in writing to yourself so you have proof.

Mortgagedude wrote: »

The letting agent does have a check box on their exhaustive agreement where LL agrees they will handle consent to let and they are quite a large local franchise.

How exactly do they phrase that? Who are they? ARLA recommends a good ARLA agent should check for consent to let - not merely duck the issue.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

If only all were like you, then there wouldn't be any need to keep bringing in these laws to stop the bad landlords; or for all of us to have to finance councils who employ staff to take action against bad landlords and bad letting agents.

Now if only we could find a way to bring in laws to stop all the bad tenants, who outnumber bad landlords by a significant margin.

Or for all of us to not have to indirectly finance non-paying, destructive and irresponsible tenants through our insurance and borrowing costs.

posts and posting style are appreciated by the good landlords and are a great help to tenants.

Not really.

Letting a house isn't rocket science. It's not hard, it's not particularly time consuming, and it certainly doesn't have to be a full time business for all but the biggest of landlords.

Trying to portray it as something more complicated than that is just self-aggrandizing nonsense.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Mortgagedude wrote: »

What they have said is that they won't be cancelling my agreement or expecting me to pay off the mortgage. Instead they will charge me an ongoing unauthorised letting fee of 2%.

It's an immensely grey area.

What they're doing makes sense, from their perspective, as they can allow you to let the flat, make more money anyway, and potentially avoid having to deal with the hassles of keeping a tenant in-situ if you default, as they can can try to claim consent was not granted.

However, I would suggest that if you have notified the mortgage provider, and they elected not to take any further action other than to charge you a fee, then you may well have a case that they have effectively given implied consent, no matter how they phrase the contents of the letter or what they call the charges.

If that is the case, then insurance should also pay out for a claim, provided you also notified them of the specifics at the time of policy purchase.

But if I were you, I'd spend £100 and speak to a solicitor.

MissMoneypenny

My comment to artful

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Your posts and posting style are appreciated by the good landlords and are a great help to tenants.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Not really.

I rest my case:)