Landlord doesn't have buy to let mortgage?

MissMoneypenny

kingstreet wrote: »

I'm not suggesting the ARLA link is wrong. I think it relates to letting a property using owner-occupier buildings insurance and it could clarify that.

Read it again; they clearly state they are talking about consent to let.

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/

MissMoneypenny

Eton_Rifle wrote: »

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

Agree. But it's amazing to read posts on here from people who think that all letting agents have seen this proof: when it's only the good agents that ask landlords' for proof of ownership; consent from mortgage lenders; up to date mortgage statements.

Road_Hog

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Read it again; they clearly state they are talking about consent to let.

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/

It's not essential, it is however good practice.

It 'may' render your insurance void. Well yes, it 'may' render it void if you have ordinary insurance, it 'may' render your insurance void if you have LL insurance and you incorrectly answer any question regarding CTL.

Please learn the difference, between essential and good practice, and may and will.

kingstreet

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Read it again; they clearly state they are talking about consent to let.

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/

If you place the emphasis where I have, the quotation takes on a different meaning. It is assuming the landlord is using his existing residential insurance and residential mortgage for letting, not specialist insurance and/or mortgage.

MissMoneypenny

Road_Hog wrote: »

Please learn the difference, between essential and good practice, and may and will.

That's why I put "may" in my posts; as did ARLA.

I also said it was safest to get the insurers to put in writing that they will still pay out on a claim even if they haven't got consent to let from their mortgage lender. Some peoples financial problems might get a lot worse if their let property has a fire and/or a tenant is injured/killed.

MissMoneypenny

kingstreet wrote: »

If you place the emphasis where I have, the quotation takes on a different meaning. It is assuming the landlord is using his existing residential insurance and residential mortgage for letting, not specialist insurance and/or mortgage.

If ARLAs paragragh on their site was soley about having landlords insurance, then why do you think they also mentioned about having consent from the lender and head lessee too, to avoid any chance of an insurance claim being invalid?

http://www.arla.co.uk/information/in...ngs-insurance/
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). These are "ands", not "ors". All of them apply.


Failure to obtain written consent from these parties may render your insurance void in the event of a claim. This sentence is about the insurance that may be void if consent is not obtained from "these parties" (this means all the parties; the lender, existing insurer and head lessee mentioned in the previous sentence). If it's freehold, then there is no head lessee. If your exisiting insurer will not let you swap to a landlords insurance, then you need another insurer BUT the consent from "these parties" still includes the lender and head lessee.

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. This has an "and" and an "or". i.e the insurer might know that the property was let (landlords insurance) but the lender didn't. OR the lender may have given consent to let, but the landlord didn't tell the insurer OR the borrower didn't tell the insurer or lender, that they had let the property.

Road_Hog

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

If ARLAs paragragh on their site was soley about having landlords insurance, then why do you think they also mentioned about having consent from the lender and head lessee too, to avoid any chance of an insurance claim being invalid?

http://www.arla.co.uk/information/in...ngs-insurance/
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). These are "ands", not "ors". All of them apply.

It's not essential, it's just good practice. Just because ARLA put it on their website, doesn't mean that it is legally right or official.

Gordon Brown as Chancellor of the Exchequer in his very official legal position and man in charge of the country's finances, told us that he'd put an end to boom & bust.

Just because he said it, did it make it true?

dacouch

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

If ARLAs paragragh on their site was soley about having landlords insurance, then why do you think they also mentioned about having consent from the lender and head lessee too, to avoid any chance of an insurance claim being invalid?

http://www.arla.co.uk/information/in...ngs-insurance/
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). These are "ands", not "ors". All of them apply.


Failure to obtain written consent from these parties may render your insurance void in the event of a claim. This sentence is about the insurance that may be void if consent is not obtained from "these parties" (this means all the parties; the lender, existing insurer and head lessee mentioned in the previous sentence). If it's freehold, then there is no head lessee. If your exisiting insurer will not let you swap to a landlords insurance, then you need another insurer BUT the consent from "these parties" still includes the lender and head lessee.

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. This has an "and" and an "or". i.e the insurer might know that the property was let (landlords insurance) but the lender didn't. OR the lender may have given consent to let, but the landlord didn't tell the insurer OR the borrower didn't tell the insurer or lender, that they had let the property.

I agree with Kingstreet on the meaning of the ARLAs advice, which is from a letting agent association who are not experts in their field and would err on the side of caution when giving advice.

Have you found any Insurers that specifically ask / state about you must have consent to let in the application or renewal documents yet?

Have you found an Insurer that states it's a requirement in their policy documents yet?

Do you have any evidence of the many claims that have been declined due to not having consent to let?

kingstreet

Please find me a single landlord's insurance policy schedule/booklet which requires consent to let and I'll accept I'm wrong.

I incorrectly (some time ago) suggested that without consent to let, a landlord's policy might be invalid and I was asked to substantiate. I was unable to do so, hence my comments about actually reading policy schedules/booklets cover to cover to see if I was right.

I was wrong then. I accepted it and I moved on.

I have not tried to let a property using owner-occupier insurance, but my understanding here is that if you attempt to do so by asking an insurer to grant "consent to let" it will simply switch you to its own landlord policy (if available) or tell you to find landlord's cover elsewhere.

However, (and once again) I am not disagreeing with the premise that a landlord should;-

- obtain a buy to let mortgage or
- obtain consent to let from current lender and
- obtain consent to sublet from freeholder
- obtain consent to let from insurer or
- obtain landlord insurance

but notwithstanding all that, my position is that landlords' insurance policies do not require consent to let from a lender.

Direct Line - Owner-occupier policy document

http://www.directline.com/home-insurance/standard-policy-document.pdf

7. Changes that may affect your cover
You must tell us as soon as possible if there are any changes that may
affect the level and/or cover of your insurance, such as the following:
• If you change the address where you normally live.
• If any work is being done to your home other than routine
maintenance or decoration.
• If you or any adult living with you has any criminal convictions
or pending prosecutions.
• If you let your home out to tenants or a lodger moves in.
• If your home is used for business purposes or as a holiday home.
We may then reassess your cover and/or premium. If you do not tell us
about any relevant changes we may:
• charge you the wrong premium
• reject or reduce your claim; or
• declare your policy invalid.

This is not present in the Landlord policy schedule.

Hope that helps. Last post on the issue, unless someone makes a monkey of me by producing a landlord policy with it in!

dacouch

kingstreet wrote: »

Please find me a single landlord's insurance policy schedule/booklet which requires consent to let and I'll accept I'm wrong.

I incorrectly suggested that without consent to let a landlord's policy might be invalid and I was asked to substantiate. I was unable to do so, hence my comments about actually reading policy schedules/booklets cover to cover to see if I was right.

I was wrong. I accepted it and I moved on.

I have not tried to let a property using owner-occupier insurance, but my understanding here is that if you attempt to do so by asking an insurer to grant "consent to let" it will simply switch you to its own landlord policy (if available) or tell you to find landlord's cover elsewhere.

However, (and once again) I am not disagreeing with the premise that a landlord should;-

- obtain a buy to let mortgage or
- obtain consent to let from current lender and
- obtain consent to sublet from freeholder
- obtain consent to let from insurer or
- obtain landlord insurance

but notwithstanding all that, my position is that landlords' insurance policies do not require consent to let from a lender.

Hope that helps. Last post on the issue, unless someone makes a monkey of me by producing a landlord policy with it in!

If she did find an Insurer with a question about CTL, this would then fall under non disclosure which would look at whether the question was asked clearly and also whether the op had acted "Intentionally" etc etc.

If she found an Insurer with it in the policy as a warranty etc it would then be whether the breach of the warranty eg not having CTL was "connected" to the actual claim. For example if you had suffered a house fire caused by an electrical fault your Insurer could not decline your claim due to you not having used the door and window locks they required you to have etc etc.

It would be hard to think of a Buildings Insurance claim that would be "connected" to the policyholder not having CTL.