How Can The Bank Find Out I Don't Have Consent to Let?

Fire_Fox

Henman_Bill wrote: »

Hi, I think if there is a need to evict I would have to evaluate whether this could be done remotely, by the letting agent or solicitor's for me at a low cost (say £1000). If not I would probably have to come back to the UK for a period of time. I will be working from home and although I plan to live abroad I can work wherever I want, so I can come back. However the main issues there are the high costs of flights from where I'll be (£1000 return! - unless I'm fortunate enough to have business travel to Europe at company expense scheduled at the same time) and being away from my children. I think on the latter point if I had to come back for 2-3 weeks to get everything done - no problem. If I had to be here to sort out a mess for 2-3 months away from my kids not great at all, but I'll have to take that risk if I decide to go down this route.

Also, do you think not having a consent to let has any legal impact on my ability to evict?

Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper just to do it by the book?

Properly lodging the damage deposit does but not consent to lease AFAIK.
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/section-21-notices.htm
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/section-8-notice.htm

Henman_Bill

I think I've replied to everything but it was very thick and fast so let me know if I'm missed anyone or anything. Interesting that the majority viewpoint is tending against me, although I do wonder if that might be due to some people's conservative nature, wanting to sleep well at night rather than taking a risk that could lead to reward? I actually see myself as somewhat/slightly conservative, and am only looking at going down this route because the risk/reward from a financial point of view with the current tracker and anticipated low interest rate continuing seems balanced solidly towards the reward.

G_M

noh wrote: »

Section 84 does apply to mail after delivery but as already stated there needs to be intent to cause detriment and has no reasonable excuse.

Aologies - post edited with link to the Act

franklee

Henman_Bill wrote: »

Any other ways that they could find out?

Seems to me, and this is supported by anecdotal evidence on forums, that the bank probably won’t find out. Then again, you never know.

What do you think? How might the bank find out and how likely they will?

Try searching for Experian mover alerts:
http://www.experian.co.uk/consumer-information/mover-alerts-information.html

"Mover Alerts provides an early warning of customers in your portfolio who have put their home up for sale or rent, giving valuable insight to aid management and retention of existing customers.

Mover Alerts matches addresses in your customer portfolio to addresses of properties that have been put up for sale or rent. As our data is updated weekly, you can receive weekly or monthly updates on your portfolio.

...

Identification of undisclosed Buy-to-Let risk

When a customer lets out their home without advising their mortgage lender, it means the debt is incorrectly priced and risk is increased. Getting early notification of properties to rent with Mover Alerts allows the lender to be proactive in protecting its position."

Given your new tenants will be on the electoral roll, on the council tax, their own bank accounts, savings accounts, credit card, utility bills, phone book etc. at "your" address I can't see how there wouldn't be a paper trail. Not to mention your name will disappear from the above. So it just depends if the lender is proactive in picking it up.

G_M

Henman_Bill wrote: »

I think I've replied to everything but it was very thick and fast so let me know if I'm missed anyone or anything. Interesting that the majority viewpoint is tending against me, although I do wonder if that might be due to some people's conservative nature, wanting to sleep well at night rather than taking a risk that could lead to reward? I actually see myself as somewhat/slightly conservative, and am only looking at going down this route because the risk/reward from a financial point of view with the current tracker and anticipated low interest rate continuing seems balanced solidly towards the reward.

No. Interestingly there are more tenants on this sites than LLs. And tenants have a greater motive for LLs to get CTL.

But I suspect if you went to a LL-centric site (eg landlordzone) you'd get even more of a concensus in favour of compliance.

LLs can be sub-divivded into (very rough) catagories:

a) professional, do it properly
b) amateur, haven't really got a clue
c) Rackman (infamous 1960s landlord: use google!)

Generally on forums, and that includes here, c) are despised by all right-thinking people; a) are aspired to and b) need to be educated and helped up to a) !!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

noh wrote: »

Simply not true.
An offence is only commited if the mail is opened with intent to cause detriment and without reasonable excuse.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/26/section/84
the relevant wording of section 84 is

(3)A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a persons detriment and without reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.

Under the Postal Services Act 2000:

"A person commits an offence if he, without reasonable excuse, intentionally delays or opens a postal packet in the course of its transmission by post, or intentionally opens a mail bag.”

“A person commits an offence if intending to act to a person’s detriment and without reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.”

This, in essence, means that if you deliberately intercept, throw away or open somebody else’s post you are likely to be breaking the law.

Often an individual who is intercepting or opening somebody else’s post will have to then act on it to show that they did indeed “intend to act to a person’s detriment”. This will often include the individual subsequently using the information they obtained from opening your mail e.g. opening somebody else’s mail, finding a credit card and then using it for themselves running up a debt on the credit card.

This would be a clear example in which opening the post would have shown an intention to act to a person’s detriment. In this example, any punishment would, of course, be on top of the more serious offence of theft and fraud in relation to the credit card itself.

It could certainly be reasonably argued that opening your landlords mail deliberately, and using the information within to his detriment such as notifying a bank or using it as leverage in negotiations, is against the law.

In which case the tenant would be found guilty of a criminal offence and.....

The Postal Services Act 2000 states that any person who commits this offence may be “liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both”.

Level 5 on the standard scale is a fine of £5,000.

http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/criminal/other_crime_and_justice_topics/500355.html

Henman_Bill

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper just to do it by the book?

Yes, maybe, hopefully...if this situation arises I will look at the best option and easier and cheaper should certainly feature in the analysis. if there is an easy way to do it without paying solictors/letters or coming back to the UK for sure I would look at that.

Another question (to anyone). As I understand it if I ask a tenant to leave, within the reasonable timescale that's normal (like 2 months) and they are refusing to leave (even with an extension to 3 or 6 months being offered if they need it), they have paid the rent and been a good tenant, and just don't want to go, but I want to sell the house (but they don't want to buy, or can't) I am in the right here, yes? In theory you could get an eviction notice on the person if they refused to leave for, say, a year, even if they were paying the rent. Is this correct?

G_M

Fire_Fox wrote: »

There is piles of legislation to protect tenants (and landlords), you can't just make it up as you go along, again that is unprofessional. G_M did an excellent post with a selection of the legislation you need to adhere to, hopefully someone will link to it.

See post 2.

But always happy to re-link.

Henman_Bill

franklee, thanks a lot for your comment about the banks being able to use Experian Mover alerts. Now that I think about it, a bank could just look on Right Move or Zoopla or wherever. Of course, they'd have to be looking in the short window of opportunity that the property is listed on there before being removed a while after being let? And, it probably would be an ineffficient use of their time to just scour it. Then again, if the banks really wanted to chase down these people, they probably have someone smart enough to write some computer software (or just buy some) that would travel the internet and provide an up to date report of all address in the country available for rent. They could then cross reference that with their own database of contacts looking for matches between "no consent to let" and "property being offered to let" and then investigate further those matches.

Then again, my guess (and it is a complete guess) would be banks don't investigate these issues that much given that letting the property is not that much of a liability for them - probably secondary to winning new customers and upselling existing ones.

And, also the Right Move etc adverts don't list the exact address including street number so it might not be practical anyway. Not sure how Experian get their data.

Henman_Bill

G_M wrote: »

See post 2.

But always happy to re-link.

Yes, read it and very good actually. A lot of it just common sense but still a very good and useful summary that I'll likely refer back to in the future. I would probably benefit from reading it through a few times so it all sticks.