Landlord Does NOT have permission from Lender to let property I'm renting (Scotland)

martindow

Road_Hog wrote: »

So, you accidentally opened someone else's mail, addressed to them. Then you accidentally ignored the fact that it was also addressed to them at the top of the letter. You also accidentally ignored the fact that it was from a company (bank - complete with logo) that you have no dealings with?

So basically, what you are saying is that you read other people's post even when you realise that it isn't yours?

I agree with steve that this is harsh. I think anyone would have read a letter that although not addressed to them could affect them so directly. I would have no qualms in continuing to open similar letters.

Another issue if the LL lives overseas is that of tax. In England HMRC can require the tenant to withhold an portion of tax from the rent. This could well be the case in Scotland too.

I hope it works out somehow for you OP. Worrying as it must be, you are now in a position to discover where you stand and what the repercussions of this might be.

mustrum_ridcully

Road_Hog wrote: »

So, you accidentally opened someone else's mail, addressed to them. Then you accidentally ignored the fact that it was also addressed to them at the top of the letter. You also accidentally ignored the fact that it was from a company (bank - complete with logo) that you have no dealings with?

So basically, what you are saying is that you read other people's post even when you realise that it isn't yours?

Mr Amateurish Landlord seems to be very touchy about things like this. I wonder why? :whistle:

LL can do things that aren't right (sometimes illegal) and I bet you'd consider them honest mistakes/oversights (you seem unconcerned by the lack of CTL and LL registration)? Tenant accidentally opens mail that has been sent to their home, hideous crime.

DVardysShadow

Road_Hog wrote: »

So, you accidentally opened someone else's mail, addressed to them. Then you accidentally ignored the fact that it was also addressed to them at the top of the letter. You also accidentally ignored the fact that it was from a company (bank - complete with logo) that you have no dealings with?

So basically, what you are saying is that you read other people's post even when you realise that it isn't yours?

Accidentally? Probably in the OP's case.

Me, I would do it deliberately in the OP's situation. In case there was something like this shock lurking. And I have no qualms in recommending that everyone should open and read all mail which bears their street address, regardless of the name it is addressed to before deciding on how to handle it.

As for the lender sending the mail, quite possibly they send the same letter to the security property and the Landlord's accommodation address, so that any tenant gets some warning.

scheming_gypsy

the landlord will probably just reply with:

Dear Sir / Madam

No I'm not renting it out.


Thanks and cheerio

Mr L Andlord.

dodger1

Road_Hog wrote: »

So, you accidentally opened someone else's mail, addressed to them. Then you accidentally ignored the fact that it was also addressed to them at the top of the letter. You also accidentally ignored the fact that it was from a company (bank - complete with logo) that you have no dealings with?

So basically, what you are saying is that you read other people's post even when you realise that it isn't yours?

I rent and live on my own, therefore all mail is opened without any need to look at the name on the envelope. My LL should not and does not use MY address for her own correspondence.

deedee71

An unregistered landlord in Scotland can receive a hefty fine, up to £50,000.

Housing benefit is not payable to unregistered landlords and if the local council get wind of this there could be problems (if the OP receives HB).

Personally I think letting agents should not be allowed to let properties for unregistered landlords but they have no obligation to check.

silvercar

i saw something that caught my eye immediately, it was asking if they were still letting their property and why they hadn't asked for permission to do so!

"still" implies that they did have permission at some point in time. So if the Letting Agent had checked then the landlord would have shown permission at the time you took on the tenancy. So there is no reason to doubt your letting agent. It also implies that the Landlord did ask for consent to let in the past. Also a good sign.

It now looks like the Landlord does have the option of getting consent, again a good thing.

This is why I dislike CTL, at some point in time there is always the risk that the CTL will expire when there is a tenant in situ. Your Landlord really has very little option but to apply for CTL. If he decides the cost is prohibitive then he will have to comply with all the legislation giving you notice as in your contract.