Landlord doesn't have buy to let mortgage?

Road_Hog

I do hope Miss MMP is going to come back and either defend her position or apologise for her erroneous information.

I also hope that she'll change her signature to say, 'if you take my advice, you'll probably find that your LL evicts you and gets other tenants'.

And, as for the OP, I'm not sure what they're at. A bit nosy looking at LL's mortgage details, I didn't even know that you had to inform the land resgistry that you'd moved.

The OP in the opening post gives you the opinion that he/she is currently renting a property. But by post #10 (within 3 hours), informs us that they are no longer at the property.

dacouch

Road_Hog wrote: »

I do hope Miss MMP is going to come back and either defend her position or apologise for her erroneous information.

I also hope that she'll change her signature to say, 'if you take my advice, you'll probably find that your LL evicts you and gets other tenants'.

And, as for the OP, I'm not sure what they're at. A bit nosy looking at LL's mortgage details, I didn't even know that you had to inform the land resgistry that you'd moved.

The OP in the opening post gives you the opinion that he/she is currently renting a property. But by post #10 (within 3 hours), informs us that they are no longer at the property.

Unlikely, she will just keep quoting the ARLA site after all everything on the tinternet is always right.

If you know anything about Insurance see if you can spot the mistake the ARLA site makes under the Employers Liability Section.

"Employers Liability. Usually buildings policies will provide an element of Employers Liability cover. This covers claims for death or injury to anyone you employ at your property i.e. a gardener, painter etc. If you are letting to students or to tenants in receipt of state benefit the university / local authority will normally require a minimum of £5m cover."

http://www.arla.co.uk/information/insurance/buildings-insurance/

I've highlighted it to make it easier, there are actually two mistakes in the section.

Kynthia

I think it's shameful that an ex-tenant with a deposit dispute with the landlord, instead of trusting the deposit protection scheme to deal with this, would instead start maliciously reporting the landlord to the mortgage company, freeholder (if a leasehold property) and the HMRC. How do we even know that it isn't the tenant who is being unreasonable regarding the deposit.

If you are still living in a rental property then I can understand asking for consent to let if you have reason to believe there is a risk of reposession, or contacting the HMRC if you have an overseas landlord without a UK letting agent, as these are issues that could put you at risk.

lazer

So have we discussed that the LL's insurance "may" be invalid if no consent to let (However - consensus seems to be that this would only be the case if the hadn't switched from residential to landlord insurance).

However, even if the insurance as invalid this would have little impact on the tenent, it could have disasterous consequences for the landlord but not much for the tenent.

The tenent is still entitled to alternative accommodation if the house burns down (The LLord would have to pay for it directly), the landlords insurance does not cover the tenents possessions anyway, so no impact there, if the house burnt down, the tenants possessions would still be covered etc

kingstreet

Reading Lazer's post, I'd just like to clarify I'm talking about "Landlord Insurance" as in the specific product, not just insurance used by a landlord, which may be a standard owner-occupier policy not intended for letting a property.