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

Henman_Bill

Well some landlords get consent for free or a small fee like £100 or a 0.25% rate increase. As I say, I have no problem with these, as you say, appropriate costs. But if my bank moves me off a tracker they are in effect as I said charging me £2,000-£3,000 per year for the right to let, not sure exactly how much, let's say £2,000 a year for the sake of argument.

Now hypothetically if the interest rate stayed at its current position for the next 25 years (remaining lifetime of the mortgage) and if I rented it out for that entire time, that would be a charge of £50,000 (more than 50% of the entire value of the house) for the right to let it out. Obviously that's a very high maximum value - the reality is I could sell the house much earlier, or interest rates could rise, so in reality they will only charge me £5,000-£20,000 most likely. But it's still SO excessive as a charge for letting. That is the problem here. If they were even remotely fair, so would I be in return.

In terms of the risks for the tenants, I really think they are very low and I will compensate them fairly if ever necessary - I doubt it. Really for me I don't think the morality issues or risks for the tenant are enough to stop me here.

I think I will go ahead with the plan if I can do so without breaking any laws, if I can do so without having to resort to any immoral or fraudulent or dishonest behaviour in the details required to execute the plan, if the buildings insurance I get will certainly cover me despite the lack of consent. And provided I judge that the odds of the bank finding out are not very high.

Everyone has the right to pass their moral judgements and may continue to do so but this will likely have less influence on my actual decision. Any factual info about things like the odds of the bank finding out, the risk of an insurance company not paying out on a fire destroying the house, would be of greater interest.

Again I woud like to say I really appreciate everyone taking the time to assess my situation and comment on it.

brit1234

Henman Bill do the right thing, pay your fees, get your permission, stop committing fraud. You say you are above the average in honesty, I doubt that you are committing a criminal act and profiting from it while others are far more honest.

Sort it out, if you don't I hope you are grassed up.

Thrugelmir

Henman_Bill wrote: »

We never agreed not to let and the issue is not mentioned at all in any paperwork we ever received or signed.

You applied for residential mortgage. By legal definition this is for owner occupation.

What makes you different from the millions of people that have previously obtained a mortgage with the more or less standard wording?

Haven't bothered reading the while thread. Just in the same way the wheel was invented over 2,000 years ago. English Law is well established. So best to understand the principles.

Only a fool would take such a risk to ruin their reputation for the greed of making some money.

seven-day-weekend

What happens if the Bank DO find out that you do not have consent to let, decides that you have broken the terms of you mortgage agreement and asks you to repay the loan in full?

Apart from the fact that it is dishonest, I would not ever do it for the above reason alone.

I have lived abroad and did rent my house out whilst there (didn't need CTL as house was already paid for), but no way would I not have sought the CTL otherwise.

dacouch

Will be amusing if the tenants bank with the mortgage provider and the mortgage provider cross refers the data...

Goldiegirl

I think, in your mind, you have justified your actions towards the bank by saying to yourself that you never agreed not to let the property.

That may be true, but your mortgage conditions will have stated a clause along the lines of 'I will seek consent to lease if I wish to let the property'.

So you did agree to ask them for permission if this situation ever arose.

If the lender did something which was not in agreement with the the mortgage conditions, I imagine you'd be quick to run on to this forum and say it isn't fair.

Yet it appears that you are quite willing to breach the mortgage conditions, and feel quite happy about it, because you'll save a few quid.

People are quick to blame banks for everything, but don't behave an honourable way themselves.

Henman_Bill

If the bank asks me to repay the loan in full (unlikely I think) I will just have to sell the house as I explained in the original article. If I have to sell it very fast I may have to take a slight loss.

Goldiegirl

So, you are still going to go ahead and breach your mortgage conditions?

[Deleted User]

Who cares? If the OP want's to do this let them. If they get caught - "oh well".

If the people that let from them don't check and they get booted out, then that's also their own fault.

Nobody can loose here as long as everyone does the right thing and checks/ follows rules.

The bank will never loose on this one.

Henman_Bill

Nothing to "breach". I never agreed not to let, and I have read carefully through all the documents (more than once) scrutinising the small print in everything they ever sent me and this was never mentioned. As a double check, just on the very small chance that I might have mislaid something, I also called the bank and asked them if I had ever agreed to this and if there was anything they could send me that I had signed that had agreed to this. They were unable to send anything when given the opportunity.