Landlord doesn't have buy to let mortgage?

Road_Hog

dacouch wrote: »

I think she will refer to an FAQ on the Endsleigh website who are a broker and I also think the "Insurer" she wrote to ask confirmation was Endsleigh.

She can refer to to any website she likes, but I'll refer her straight back to the contract between the LL and insurer.

Road_Hog

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Without CTL being officially granted then the tenants have no right to occupy the property.

That is a separate issue, let's stick to the one we're discussing, insurance.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

If the property burns down or damage is caused , due to the tenants negligence. Then the claim can be declined.

Why would that be?

Thrugelmir wrote: »

As the insurance cover is technically void. The point at issue is occupancy. Not the insurance cover purchased.

Again, it is nothing to do with occupancy, if you buy LL insurance, the insurance comapny is aware of the fact that you will have tenants.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Also there is the duty of disclosure by the applicant which applies to all insurance policies.

Yes, and bringing you back to my point, unless the contract stipulates that you have to have CTL and you lie, then the contract is valid.

Your position with your financial lender has no bearing on insurance, unless your insurancec ompany particularly stipluates this.

Road_Hog

pandaspot wrote: »

but interested to know what the implications are of not declaring to mortgage company etc.

Very little implication, for the main. Lenders usually want to know, because they like to charge a higher interest rate. Some aren't bothered and some are quite happy if it is a temporary situation - such as a job placement somewhere else in the country.

The main thing for tenants is, that they have less security if the LL doesn't pay the mrotgage and has the house repossesed.

Also, if the owner is abroad and you pay the rent directly, then you can be liable for the tax from HMRC.

The former is a possibility, then latter a rarity and TBH, if your LL is living abroad, then you should be going through a letting agent. Personally as an LL (who is UK based), I don't want to deal with tenants unless necessary, so I always go through an agent.

It always makes me laugh the amount of LL bashing that goes on here and how many want to put one on the LL. They might want to think about the fact, that the majority of LLs these days, are part time/accidental LLs and if they pull out of the market, you'll be at the mercy of the professionals and don't think that the council will help you, as they don't have any houses left.

LLs have plenty to complain about tenants, but they they don't start loads of threads about it, they just get on with it. My tenants don't mention the fact that they're paying the same rent as when they moved in 11 years ago. It might have been nice to have been told about the fact that the neighbours had knocked down (by car) our front dividing wall, instead of me noticing it when I delivered a ne washing machine.

Just remember folks, when shouting for more regulation and laws etc., it all costs money and who do you think pays for it?

Bluebonnie

OP

To return to the original question:
What makes you think the property is mortgaged? Is there a charge registered with HMLR?

pandaspot

the land reg details the mortgage provider.

Thrugelmir

Road_Hog wrote: »

It always makes me laugh the amount of LL bashing that goes on here and how many want to put one on the LL.

Many people post on MSE to help people make informed decisions. Unfortunately there's no consumer protection in the world of business. As the old tax saying goes. Ignorance is no excuse. Too often I've seen people fail to read the small print or obtain proper advice when making a commercial decision. Ultimately resulting in the very least at financial loss.

Thrugelmir

pandaspot wrote: »

Ok thanks clearing that up, would have thought he would have done it after renting the property for last 3 years

I doubt that many LL remember to change their address at land registry. As of no direct consequence.

Are you still receiving the LL's mail? As that would suggest something untoward.

pandaspot

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I doubt that many LL remember to change their address at land registry. As of no direct consequence.

Are you still receiving the LL's mail? As that would suggest something untoward.

yes we were when living there, we received debt letters, dvla letters etc

pandaspot

Eton_Rifle wrote: »

How are you deducing all this from only the Land Registry entry?

I have a mortgage on a house that I let. I lived briefly in the house, then it was 3 years on a CTL and now it's on a BTL product.

I have not updated the Land Registry entry since purchase so it hasn't reflected any of this. Therefore you would be making the same false assumption about that house.

Concerned tenants should actually ask to see the CTL proof. A good letting agent will request this from the landlord.

well that's exactly what it is, its an assumption. i only heard about this recently. i was posting to find out what the implications could be if any?

I doubt many tenants ask to see the ctl proof, or even think about doing so. As many have never been home owners and like me didn't even think about a ll needing permission to let.

Thrugelmir

pandaspot wrote: »

yes we were when living there, we received debt letters, dvla letters etc

When is past tense. So why are interested now?