Crazy Halifax 'consent to lease' rates - please help!

brit1234

bris wrote: »

I've seen some crap on this forum but this one takes the biscuit.
Can you give us just one example of an arrest, prison time or big fine because of someone renting their flat without CTL.
The OP's situation has changed there is no fraud involved, whether the OP gets CTL or not is a civil matter between them and the bank.

You really are a sad little scaremonger.

I know of lots of mortgage fraud cases where people have gone to prison and have to pay money back but I won't give specific names.

What you don't seem to realise is anyone charged with a fraud offence will go to Crown Court for trial and or sentencing not Magistrates Court. So they are highly likely to get prison time rather than a lesser punishment which Magistrates.

Our unit has made used mortgage fraud to target criminals and this week a male was arrested and charged with multiple fraud offences by us relating to housing after being tipped off by the council.

On top of that the police are having increased funding from the banks to clamp down on fraud and will also now be focussing more on mortgage fraud.

http://www.lse.co.uk/FinanceNews.asp?ArticleCode=2vmmwzhh9jaf452&ArticleHeadline=UK_banks_mull_more_cash_for_police_antifraud_unit

Bris personally I would recommend you encourage criminality on public forums. :mad:

new_home_owner_3

silvercar wrote: »

You need to understand the difference between applying for a residential mortgage with the intention of letting the property and moving out of a property and renting it out when you legally obtained the mortgage for you to live in the property as your home.

One is fraud, obtaining money by deception and one is a breech of a terms of your mortgage.

my circumstances where a little different i re mortgaged my house interest only on a long five year fixed deal, i made it clear to the mortgage company i would want to rent it out in the future and they said this would not be a problem, they said all i would have to do is pay a fee bi annually and the rate would stay the same. Anyway 9 months after we found a house we liked so we decided to activate the consent to let which was in their terms.

They did not like it as it was in the first 12 months, and they did turn us down, but after a little bit of negotiation and a few pointers to what they said when they was selling the mortgage, they didnt have a option other than to grant us consent to let they even compensated by paying the first fee.

Its all about planning, i planned and knew what might happen in my future, remember i hadnt even found or made a offer on any other house before i took out the mortgage.

HARSA

1.5% on top of your normal mortgage rate is perfectly reasonable. Try and speak to them again as the OP suggested.

Maybe I am bit !!!!ed off with the banks for wanting to hike up peoples' mortgage when they should be assisting them. I perfectly understand that they need to make profit. An increase of 1-2% coupled with a consent to let for maximum of 2-3 years for people who have to reallocate suddenly due to work is very reasonable.

I think BRIT1234 comment & link is way of the mark here - I doubt very much the funds are to catch and send people to jail for simply not getting a consent to let from their mortgage providers.

I am in no way favour of homeowners looking to make a fast buck by letting out their properties.

real1314

brit1234 wrote: »

I know of lots of mortgage fraud cases where people have gone to prison and have to pay money back but I won't give specific names.

Why won't you give specifics?

If cases have been to court, the details are public domain information. Unless of course there are none, in which case they are figments of an imagination.

"forum user makes unsubstantiated claim" ; draw your own conclusions. :cool:

brit1234

real1314 wrote: »

Why won't you give specifics?

More to myself not giving away who I am or where I work on a public forum, jeopardising future jobs on certain people.

If I say this job, on this property in this area, or even keep it general someone aware of it could be damaging. I leaned a similar lesson at crown court once where a job had to be dropped completely because it would comprimise other things.



Lets just say this new fraud act is nice and simple, very easy to use and gets good results.

What I can say is I have used it a lot with out giving a lot away is for driving offences for example if someone showed you a fake driving licence, or showed you a insurance certificate stating the car is insured when they have cancelled the policy.

kingstreet

mindthegap9940 wrote: »

Agree wholeheartedly HARSA. It's the lack of reasonableness and apparent inability to take individual circumstances into account that's so galling. The ironic thing is, as part of her rather officious lecture, the Halifax employee said that those who do not declare they are leasing 'always get found out' (I also have friends that certainly haven't been) and when they are the Halifax immediately increases their rate by 1.5% as a penalty. This would still be significantly less than the rate they propose to charge us for consent to lease! Hardly a deterrent.

Having the penalty applied to you doesn't give you the permission you need though.

You need to change your insurance when you let a property. One of the conditions will be that you have consent to do so from your lender. If you do not obtain this, you risk invalidating your insurance and being unable to make a claim at a very unfortunate time - when your property is a smoking heap of embers. Not good.

brit1234

DaisyWheel wrote: »

What does this sentence mean?

You have already told us that you a uniformed policeman in Chelsea. Why are you being shy about it now?

No I didn't Nollag, stop stalking.

silvercar

kingstreet wrote: »

Having the penalty applied to you doesn't give you the permission you need though.

You need to change your insurance when you let a property. One of the conditions will be that you have consent to do so from your lender. If you do not obtain this, you risk invalidating your insurance and being unable to make a claim at a very unfortunate time - when your property is a smoking heap of embers. Not good.

I thought, though it may be urban myth, that if they took the penalty fee they were accepting that the property was tenanted and so effectively acknowledging the tenancy.

Disagreeing on your second para, in that if you take out insurance for a tenanted property you are paying for the risk. Most such insurers note down the lenders details as part of the cover and can send a cover note to them, to prove property is insured. Whether they could then refuse to payout having provided cover and noted the lenders interest is debatable. Of course getting the cOrrect insurance is essential and there is a risk that the insurer provides info to the lender of cover. But declining to pay out on a specific tenanted property policy just because the lender wasn't aware is extending the theory beyond the reasonable.

HARSA

He reckons that I am also Nollag. No wonder why policing is going downhill in the country when they are employing people like him. I have read a lot of the threads he either started or contributed and he is not very smart.

madeupname1

silvercar wrote: »

I thought, though it may be urban myth, that if they took the penalty fee they were accepting that the property was tenanted and so effectively acknowledging the tenancy.

This was my experience. Mortgage lender didn't want to extend the consent to let even though the property was tenanted. They imposed the penalty and I asked for confirmation that this was agreement to the continued letting. They moaned about it, but they agreed to extend.