Landlord doesn't have buy to let mortgage?

kingstreet

I'd like to clarify the insurance issue.

Landlord insurance, or at least the two dozen or so landlord contracts I looked at one afternoon a few months ago, have nothing written concerning lender's consent to let.

As long as the property is correctly insured for its occupancy, the insurer won't be bothered about consent from the lender.

You could have a problem if a property is let using owner-occupier insurance as this cannot normally be amended for letting. Usually, a new policy has to be taken out with a specialist provider, or on landlord terms.

A claim may be rejected if the wrong insurance is in force.

To confirm;-

- get consent to sublet from freeholder if the property is leasehold
- get consent to let from lender if no formal buy to let mortgage product is taken
- insure the property using landlord's insurance.

19lottie82

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Why would a tenant want to stay in a property where the landlord hasn't been given consent to let? Without that consent, the tenant has less legal rights in the event the landlord has failed to use their rent to pay the mortgage and also runs the risk of the landlords insurance being invalid in ther event of a claim. We all know how insurers look for ways to avoid paying on a claim.

If a landlord can't show their Consent to Let, then they don't have it.

A section 21 won't work during a fixed term contract. The tenant should get the hell out of that place as soon as the fixed term is over, if they have been unfortunate to find themselves in a property where the landlord wasn't given permission to let the property.

Being realistic, in todays housing market, i guess a large proportion of LL's don't have CTL. If aside from that the LL and the property are above average, then I certainly wouldn't jump to move out of a property just because the LL doesn't have CTL.

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

1 If the landlord is living abroad and the tenant doesn't rent through an agency, then the tenant is one who is responsible to deduct the landlord's taxes from the rent and pay HMRC (unless the landlord has provided the tenant with their HMRC tax exemption).

How many tenants have actually been prosecuted for this? I woudl be suprised if more that a small percentage actually knew that this was the case!

MissMoneypenny

pandaspot wrote: »

Right I have actually left the property, i feel the landlord is being unreasonable about things he wants doing before the deposit is handed back.

Is the deposit in one of the schemes? Was an inventory done before you moved in and if it was, was it signed by both parties?

pandaspot wrote: »

I suppose I was being nosey and had seen something about landlords who didn't have permission to let, didn't really know what implications this would have on us or him.

Get your deposit first. Not much you can do about the failure to do repairs now as you should have contacted your council (private tenancy section or environmental health) while you lived in the property. You could have asked them to carry out a safety inspection on the property and asked them to deal with your landlord regarding his failure to carry out his repairs.

When your deposit is sorted, help other tenants by contacting his lender (details on them on the land registry document) and inform them that the property is let. Then report the landlord to HMRC too on the tax evasion hotline or online form (you dont' have to give your details) so they can check if he has been declaring his rental income to them.

MissMoneypenny

19lottie82 wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't jump to move out of a property just because the LL doesn't have CTL.

Are you saying that because you are letting a property without your lenders consent? Aren't you worried about things like your property burning down and your insurer failing to pay out as you failed to get consent to let?

It it much safer for a tenant and their family, to rent from a landlord who has got consent from their mortgate lender and avoid those landlords that don't.

19lottie82 wrote: »

How many tenants have actually been prosecuted for this? I woudl be suprised if more that a small percentage actually knew that this was the case!

That's why we have these internet forums; so people can be advised of the pitfalls and avoid them.

The NRL scheme applies to:

• letting agents who handle or control UK letting income on behalf of a landlord whose usual place of abode is outside the UK and
• tenants who make payments directly to a landlord whose usual place of abode is outside the UK

unless they have been notified by CAR PTI that they must pay rental income with no tax deducted, letting agents must deduct and account for tax on rental income received less allowable expenses paid. Tenants must deduct and account for tax on rental income paid direct to the overseas landlord.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/pimmanual/pim4800.htm

EDIT
If anyone reading this has an overseas landlord that they pay directly; perhaps contact HMRC to see how to go about repaying any of the landlords taxes, from the future rent payments.

pandaspot

Thanks for that.

I do want to make it clear though before anyone thinks it, I wasn't going blackmail the ll

My deposit is with the dps, I have been waiting for the agents to get back to me re: quotes. Waited 10 days with no answer, it's the never ending quote scenario but no action again. So this morning put in my claim on the dps website.

I actually live opposite my old house now, and noticed they sent a guy round to do quotes a couple of hours ago and had a property viewing not so long ago.

God I sound so nosey!! Honestly I am not that bad, I work at home so my eyes wandered from the screen and I noticed the lights on!

And yes full inventory done before occupancy.

19lottie82

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Are you saying that because you are letting a property without your lenders consent?

No. I own one property, which I live in.

I'm saying that because I'm being realistic.

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

The NRL scheme applies to:

• letting agents who handle or control UK letting income on behalf of a landlord whose usual place of abode is outside the UK and
• tenants who make payments directly to a landlord whose usual place of abode is outside the UK

unless they have been notified by CAR PTI that they must pay rental income with no tax deducted, letting agents must deduct and account for tax on rental income received less allowable expenses paid. Tenants must deduct and account for tax on rental income paid direct to the overseas landlord.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/pimmanual/pim4800.htm

EDIT
If anyone reading this has an overseas landlord that they pay directly; perhaps contact HMRC to see how to go about repaying any of the landlords taxes, from the future rent payments.

Again, do you have any documented cases of any tenants being prosecuted over this?

MissMoneypenny

pandaspot wrote: »

My deposit is with the dps, I have been waiting for the agents to get back to me re: quotes. Waited 10 days with no answer, it's the never ending quote scenario but no action again. So this morning put in my claim on the dps website.

I think that is all you can do at the moment. On the renting sticky ( I think it was that thread) one person put how they let their landlord list all the problems with the DPS and then they (the tenant) answered each point the landlord raised. They got the full deposit back.

Have you got contents insurance, with the add on of legal cover? If you haven't, try to get it and ensure it doens't exculde action against/defending action from, a landlord. A new policy wouldn't cover you for this case, but should give you peace of mind for any future problems.

lazer

19lottie82 wrote: »

No. I own one property, which I live in.

I'm saying that because I'm being realistic.



Again, do you have any documented cases of any tenants being prosecuted over this?

I agree - and as has been stated time and time again - not having consent to let does not invalidate Landlords insurance - it is only owner occupier insurance that would be invalid.

MissMoneypenny

kingstreet wrote: »

As long as the property is correctly insured for its occupancy, the insurer won't be bothered about consent from the lender.

One of the landlords on here said this about their insurance; but when I wrote to that company and asked if they would pay out on a claim if I didn't have consent to let, they didn't confirm that.

Wouldn't it be better if the landlord who hasnt' got consent to let, asks their insurers to confirm in writing that they will pay out on a claim without this constent to let from the mortgage lender? Or get that in writing from the salesman who sold them the policy (if that salesman has sufficient assets to cover any losses if the insurance company won't pay out on a claim)?

MissMoneypenny

lazer wrote: »

I agree - and as has been stated time and time again - not having consent to let does not invalidate Landlords insurance.

Yet that's not what the Association of Letting Agents are saying on their website

Consent. It is essential that you advise and obtain consent to let your property from your mortgage lender, existing insurer and head lessee (for leasehold properties). Failure to obtain written consent from these parties may render your insurance void in the event of a claim. Sadly there have been many instances where buildings claims have been totally rejected because the insurer and or mortgage lender was not advised the property was let.
http://www.arla.co.uk/information/in...ngs-insurance/