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

brit1234

JB613 wrote: »

Hi HARSA, as someone with a good knowledge of this sort of thing ;-) you can rest assured that this is not "Mortgage Fraud" or Fraud by false representation.

BRIT123 may be a bobby, he's probably a special!

Obviously not JB613, infact I believe you might have poor or no knowledge of this. By you low posts and sudden abuse I strongly suspect you of being one of nollags sockies.

Nollag get to know the points to prove and the only thing special here is you.

:rotfl:

Please stop creating these trap/false spin threads.

JB613

What on earth is a "nollag sockie"?!?!

I don't know what you are implying. Yes I am a new poster and I have come on here seeking some advice. I do however take offence to you spreading mis-information about the police and law. It is not good for PR by suggesting that good people could and would be criminalised and in the most serious of ways ie Crown Court for trying to do the best in a bad situation.

This site is about consumers trying to get the best deals, and not being ripped off by businesses or having to suffer poor customer service.

I am going through a similar time to some of these posters and it is worrying enough trying to find a suitable solution to your problem, without matters being made worse by being told you will become a criminal.

Yorkie1

The distinction needs to be drawn between the situation where a person deliberately misrepresents circumstances / intention at the time of applying for a (re)mortgage - which is capable of being fraud - and the situation where a person already has a mortgage but fails to inform the lender of a change of circumstances - which is not capable of being fraud but is capable of being a breach of contract (civil law).

HARSA

I see that Brit1234 has added you on the Nollag list. Take no notice of him - the guy is crazy

MissMoneypenny

silvercar wrote: »

From my property renewal form:

"MATERIAL FACTS It is essential that you disclose all material facts at renewal, ie any fact which could influence an insurer's assessment of the risk. If you are in doubt about whether a fact is material please contact us [the broker] for guidance."

In the policy document:
There is a section headed "change of circumstances" with a list of changes that would require notification, but none of them relate to the mortgage.

In fact I can't find any mention of a mortgage in the documents other than "3rd parties noted to have an interest: [name of lender]"

If anyone wants to read the whole policy it is here:

http://www.mma-insurance.com/a/pdf/ResidentialPropertyOwners_Wording.pdf

Your link is to a residential mortgage and landlords would need a commercial mortgage with this company. MMA have just comfirmed this fact.

Their commercial claims department just told me that some some landlord claims will fall foul if the landlord doesn't have consent to let from their mortgage lender. I then asked "if the rented house had a fire and I didn't have consent to let, would they still pay out on a claim" and they said that is one of the ones that would fall fowl.

silvercar

Well that is wrong as that link is from my broker, whose policy I have. The policy is a policy for tenanted properties that the broker has put together for his landlord clients. It even has sections that pay out for loss of rent etc. as I've shown in the sticky thread at the top of this board.

As you say never believe anything posted on the internet.

franklee

silvercar wrote: »

From my property renewal form:

"MATERIAL FACTS It is essential that you disclose all material facts at renewal, ie any fact which could influence an insurer's assessment of the risk. If you are in doubt about whether a fact is material please contact us [the broker] for guidance."

In the policy document:
There is a section headed "change of circumstances" with a list of changes that would require notification, but none of them relate to the mortgage.

In fact I can't find any mention of a mortgage in the documents other than "3rd parties noted to have an interest: [name of lender]"

If anyone wants to read the whole policy it is here:

http://www.mma-insurance.com/a/pdf/ResidentialPropertyOwners_Wording.pdf

If this is the section you mean:

"3. Changes in Your Circumstances

When you arranged your insurance you told us certain material facts which were recorded on the proposal form or statement of fact.

You must tell us or your insurance broker or intermediary straight away about any material change in your circumstances. For example we need to know:

(a) Of a change of address.

etc. to

(i) Of a change to any of the information recorded in the proposal form or statement of fact.

If you do not tell us about any changes, you may not be covered in the event of a claim."

It's not meant to be an exhaustive list, it's a list of examples clearly stating For example we need to know:. So I would not rely on that section to let you off failing to disclose something that may be relevant just because it isn't listed. Indeed they bend over backward to say you should check if you are in doubt, from the form:

"MATERIAL FACTS It is essential that you disclose all material facts at renewal, ie any fact which could influence an insurer's assessment of the risk. If you are in doubt about whether a fact is material please contact us [the broker] for guidance."

I would think that a lender refusing consent to let would influence an insurer's assessment as the lender is implying it's not a viable business plan. However a way to be sure is to contact them for guidance, I guess a reluctance to do that speaks for itself as if all was fine there should be no problem asking.

silvercar

franklee wrote:

I would think that a lender refusing consent to let would influence an insurer's assessment as the lender is implying it's not a viable business plan. However a way to be sure is to contact them for guidance, I guess a reluctance to do that speaks for itself as if all was fine there should be no problem asking.

A lender could refuse CTL just because they don't do it full stop, possibly because (like one arm of Northern Rock) they have to reduce their loan business.

You persuaded me completely on the unfairness of the sword of Damocles. CTL I find a total red herring - far better for a tenant to see that the mortgage is paid to date on a short term let.

What worries me more than anything for new landlords is that a high percentage are letting out their property because they can't afford to live there. If they can't afford to live there, can they afford to maintain the property as well as the extra costs of being a landlord like GSC, insurance etc. ? In a lot of cases I suspect not.

MissMoneypenny

franklee wrote: »

I would think that a lender refusing consent to let would influence an insurer's assessment as the lender is implying it's not a viable business plan. However a way to be sure is to contact them for guidance, I guess a reluctance to do that speaks for itself as if all was fine there should be no problem asking.

I think that insurers look for ways to avoid paying out on a claim; they are a business afer all and want to make a healthy profit. Who would want to lose some of their profits when claimants give them such an easy "get out" as not having consent to let

As I was told by the insurance claims department this morning; the safest way is to get the mortgate lenders consent to let.

Thrugelmir

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I think that insurers look for ways to avoid paying out on a claim; they are a business afer all and want to make a healthy profit.

The key issue is also a complete lack of trust. If someone is prepared to lie, what else have they been dishonest about. In any line of business no one wants customers like that. Why waste valuable time dealing with them.