what happens if you inform santander youre renting the property?

Henman_Bill

Very interesting point, thank you so much. Is there any way I could find out what my bank's policy is? Without ideally revealing on the forum the name of my bank? How could I go about finding out if they are tracking this? Probably no way anyone here can give me definite help with that, but I'll ask just in case.

By the way, I originally took out building's insurance with the bank I got the mortgage from, then changed it to another bank after my renewal quote went up instead of down, and then changed it to another company later on after checking prices on a comparison site. When I move to landlord's insurance I will change again as my current provider does not do it. Do you really think a bank could be tracking all of this, or just the original policy? For sure, they wanted to make sure I had buildings insurance at the beginning, but would they continue to track all of these separate companies?

Might be worth me calling my current insurer and asking, perhaps anonymously if at all possible, if they share that info with the bank? Then again, would a call centre person even know that? Possibly not.

Might seem crazy, but if really necessary I could keep paying the current insurance and just throw £200/year into the bin if I thought the current insurer was a risk of telling the bank (i.e. keep the now useless insurance and get an additional landlord insurance). It would be worth paying £200/year on a very basic policy for buildings insurance if it meant it stopped the bank finding out and changing my mortgage off the tracker rate - which might cost £2000-£3000/year.

Then again if I do that, even if it's just allowing an automatic renewal to carry on, I am drifting towards an area of fraudulent behaviour. I don't mind not telling the bank but I don't want to be put in a positive where I would have to lie or admit really fraudulent behaviour.

Certainly when I get landlord's insurance I am planning an anonymous call to check they don't share with banks...

Henman_Bill

Also, "for various ways" what others might there be for them to find out?

hugoshavez

Henman_Bill wrote: »

Very interesting point, thank you so much. Is there any way I could find out what my bank's policy is? Without ideally revealing on the forum the name of my bank? How could I go about finding out if they are tracking this? Probably no way anyone here can give me definite help with that, but I'll ask just in case.

By the way, I originally took out building's insurance with the bank I got the mortgage from, then changed it to another bank after my renewal quote went up instead of down, and then changed it to another company later on after checking prices on a comparison site. When I move to landlord's insurance I will change again as my current provider does not do it. Do you really think a bank could be tracking all of this, or just the original policy? For sure, they wanted to make sure I had buildings insurance at the beginning, but would they continue to track all of these separate companies?

Might be worth me calling my current insurer and asking, perhaps anonymously if at all possible, if they share that info with the bank? Then again, would a call centre person even know that? Possibly not.

Might seem crazy, but if really necessary I could keep paying the current insurance and just throw £200/year into the bin if I thought the current insurer was a risk of telling the bank (i.e. keep the now useless insurance and get an additional landlord insurance). It would be worth paying £200/year on a very basic policy for buildings insurance if it meant it stopped the bank finding out and changing my mortgage off the tracker rate - which might cost £2000-£3000/year.

Then again if I do that, even if it's just allowing an automatic renewal to carry on, I am drifting towards an area of fraudulent behaviour. I don't mind not telling the bank but I don't want to be put in a positive where I would have to lie or admit really fraudulent behaviour.

Certainly when I get landlord's insurance I am planning an anonymous call to check they don't share with banks...

These seem like some pretty drastic things to be considering, in order to deceive your lender. Are you quite sure they won't give you consent? No chance of remortgaging?

G_M

Henman_Bill wrote: »

Very interesting point, thank you so much. Is there any way I could find out what my bank's policy is? Without ideally revealing on the forum the name of my bank? How could I go about finding out if they are tracking this? Probably no way anyone here can give me definite help with that, but I'll ask just in case.

Very easy answer - but I'm afraid I'm not willing to assist you directly in this. I do not condone your plan to let the property out without either a BTL mortgage or CTL.

Apart from anything else it is unfair on the tenants.

Others might...

Henman_Bill

Probably paying the insurance I won't need is over the top, and perhaps immoral, I probably won't do that, but it was just something to think about.

They will give consent but they will move me off a tracker rate mortgage. This will cost me £2000-£3000 per year and, depending on how interest rate change and how long before the house, cost me about £5000-£15,000 in total.

I could remortgage but obviously no-one will give me a tracker rate now so it will cost me the same amount.

Why am I doing this? It's all about the money, isn't it, to be honest. Then again money means things like better schooling and healthcare for the family.

Henman_Bill

G_M wrote: »

Very easy answer - but I'm afraid I'm not willing to assist you directly in this. I do not condone your plan to let the property out without either a BTL mortgage or CTL.

Apart from anything else it is unfair on the tenants.

Others might...

Thanks for not being judgemental. Why is it unfair on the tenants? If the bank finds out they are more likely to charge me more than suddenly evict the tenants? And if my future tenants do get served a sudden notice I was thinking of paying them a month's rent maybe as compensation for the hassle of finding somewhere at short notice.

Yorkie1

Henman_Bill wrote: »

Thanks for not being judgemental. Why is it unfair on the tenants? If the bank finds out they are more likely to charge me more than suddenly evict the tenants? And if my future tenants do get served a sudden notice I was thinking of paying them a month's rent maybe as compensation for the hassle of finding somewhere at short notice.

If the lender takes repossession proceedings and has neither given a BTL mortgage nor CTL, then the tenants have no protection against immediate eviction unless they are able to apply to the court at the repossession hearing for a delay of up to 2 months to find somewhere else to live.

The lender could take repossession proceedings either if you stopped paying or, much more unlikely admittedly, if it asked you to repay the entire sum on demand.

Do you understand how you may bring a tenancy to an end? It may not be as straightforward as you seem to assume from your post above.

Henman_Bill

Yorkie1 wrote: »

If the lender takes repossession proceedings and has neither given a BTL mortgage nor CTL, then the tenants have no protection against immediate eviction unless they are able to apply to the court at the repossession hearing for a delay of up to 2 months to find somewhere else to live.

The lender could take repossession proceedings either if you stopped paying or, much more unlikely admittedly, if it asked you to repay the entire sum on demand.

Do you understand how you may bring a tenancy to an end? It may not be as straightforward as you seem to assume from your post above.

Thanks for your clarification. Right, so if I keep paying the mortgage it shouldn't be an issue. At the moment the mortgage is like 13% of my net salary so it shouldn't really ever be an issue - certainly not if I keep this job. Of course, you can never be 100% sure what will happen in life. But in the unlikely event that it ever comes to this, I really do intend to help the tenant's out, or just give them the last month's rent for free as a fair compensation.

For bringing a tenancy to an end, my belief is that I would serve a notice period (maybe 1-3 months) and then they have to move out before the end of that period. For tenants that refuse to leave, you have to get an eviction order and that can take something like 8 months and you won't get the rent back (unless you've paid for an insurance). Is that about right?

Henman_Bill

For the comments on my personal situation, might be worth moving to the thread I created: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/60197333#Comment_60197333
I just asked a question here but ending up taking over someone's else's thread and effectively having 2 threads discuss the same issue. Maybe consolidate any further discussion (if there is any) above?

This thread could discuss the landlord's insurance issue perhaps in a more general sense, if people agree, and the above one the bank finding out issues and my personal situation?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Henman_Bill wrote: »

Why is it unfair on the tenants? .

It isn't unfair on the tenants if you, like 99%+ of other landlords, do not get repossessed.

It also isn't unfair on the tenants if you get repossessed after they've exceeded their fixed term short assured tenancy, as they can apply to the court to get 2 months notice, which is the same time you could end the tenancy on anyway.

It is only "unfair" to tenants if you are one of the sub 1% of landlords who get repo'd, and even then only if it's during the initial assured term (usually 6 months) before it converts to statutory periodic.

A tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of a percent of tenants are inconvenienced in this way.

Far lower than the serious inconvenience many tenants cause for landlords.

As to why some people get up in arms about it, you have to realise the internet has more than a few quite vindictive, anti-landlord, pro price-falls posters on it who would love nothing more than to scare people into dumping property on the market at firesale prices.

Whereas it is in the best interests of most property owners to find a way to hold through the cycle, even if that is hard in the short term, and not be forced to crystallise a loss.

There are risks involved in bending rules, and where it is possible to obtain CTL then people should. But don't for one second believe half the fear-mongering you read on the internet.