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

socrates

neas wrote: »

I sold my house, bagged the equity and am currently in 'temporary' accomodation i.e. a rental while I look to buy in my new location.

I dislike people like yourself who cut corners. My landlord did a similar thing, she moved to australia, didnt get consent to let, does minimal repair work and always wants a 6 month tenancy as opposed to periodic tenancy agreements.

After looking up her name and address at the property, AND getting the land registry I have found out the following:

1. She did a runner and owed a car firm thousands of pounds... resulting in a CCJ for her at this address.
2. She didn't get consent to let ( I rung the bank up)
3. The CCJ has now been added as a charge on the house and the final step is a forced sale (aka repossession).


Now... if she had got consent to let properly and been a normal landlord I would have the normal notice period... as the bank aren't aware (other than my phone call) of me I will get less notice when a repossesion is ordered.


Now she has shafted me by her 'saving a few pounds' I have reported her to HMRC and made sure the bank knows we are here.

Nothing she could do to 'threaten' me as she is the one negligent.:beer: Just a few anonymous phone calls and BAM revenge.

Hope everything goes well for you but you are just another amateur landlord.... which unfortunately there are plenty about. I paid £200 for a credit check for me and the wife yet the landlord who has a CCJ is fine to rent to me? Go figure.

I do not doubt most of what you have said but there is no way they would have told you over the phone if you LL has CTL - if they did that would contravene all Data Protection laws

socrates

Henman_Bill wrote: »

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.

If you keep calling the bank asking the questions you have been asking - like the one above - they will not need Miss Marple to work out what you are intending to do....

Henman_Bill

socrates wrote: »

I do not doubt most of what you have said but there is no way they would have told you over the phone if you LL has CTL - if they did that would contravene all Data Protection laws

I spotted this as well but it was not explictly stated that the person was told over the phone by the bank that there was no consent. It may have been that the call was simply to inform the bank who said "we will look into it". And the caller just guessed or later found out the full facts from another source.

Dan-Dan

henman_bill wrote: »

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.

hopefully the advisor made a note on your account whilst you were asking

Henman_Bill

socrates wrote: »

If you keep calling the bank asking the questions you have been asking - like the one above - they will not need Miss Marple to work out what you are intending to do....

Well people keep questioning my integrity but the truth is I have called the bank 4 or 5 times and been very honest. I keep trying to find the right solution. I offered to pay a fee (I told them I would give them £1000 today), offered to have them increase my interest rate, I am willing to consider anything reasonable. Most of these conversations though I either didn't give my name or just mentioned it as a casual enquiry in conversation which I doubt they put a note on the file. If they did, so be it. My guess is they just answered the questions and move onto the next call. If I don't hear anything more in the coming months from them (I have a while before I have to make a final decision) then I guess they are not investigating it.

And if they find out later and move me onto Buy to Let mortgage I'll just sell the house. So be it.

The bank is not what worries me.

Goldiegirl

Henman_Bill wrote: »

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.

When I worked for a big lender, myself and my colleagues would keep copies of mortgage conditions going back years.

Between us, we had a library of information going back to the 1970's.

So when a question like this was raised, we were able to point out the relevant clause in the mortgage conditions relating to the customer's individual mortgage.

When they made all us experienced members of staff redundant we culled all our paperwork, so the only mortgage conditions I have are the ones that applied to my mortgage. I just checked, and sure enough, under 'other covenants' it said that I had to get consent if I wanted the rent the property. (Although it said in a very wordy way)

I'm suprised your lender doesn't stipulate this.

Henman_Bill

What worries me is the buildings insurance.

What happens if I don’t tell my insurance company of my intention to let?
A. Failure to inform your insurance company of your intention to let could invalidate your insurance or leave you under-insured.This means that you could be personally liable for any claim made against you.
http://www.directlineforbusiness.co.uk/knowledge-centre/guidance-for-landlords/consent-to-let-faqs

I think I am going to have to strongly consider only using an insurer that will actually be able to confirm to me that I am fully insured despite a lack of Consent to Let. And if not in writing, at least say it over the phone and I could record the call. If I can't get this done, then on the overall balance of things I may have to just sell the house in the next few months. I think that's where we are at the moment.

Henman_Bill

Simon Gammon of Knight Frank Finance said the extra money paid to mortgage companies by accidental landlords was a "tax on honesty". He said most people did not bother to tell their lender. "The reality is that people are struggling at the moment and that one phone call could cost you thousands of pounds," he said. He said he had never heard of anyone being forced to pay backdated extra payments when they were discovered to be letting out a property but said these landlords were almost never discovered.

However, Ray Boulger from mortgage broker John Charcol said at least one lender had a policy of charging higher rates to those who were "discovered" to be renting out their properties, rather than telling the lender. He added that lenders could also go through electoral rolls to check whether someone else appeared to be living at the property. He said some lenders would allow you to come to the end of a fixed-rate period before moving onto a consent-to-let rate, while others would force you to pay early repayment charges and move immediately. "There is a huge variation," he said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/9137236/House-prices-dare-you-let-out-your-home.html

brit1234

Starting to think this is a troll. No one would be so stupid to continuously defend a corrupt stance against all other MSE members page after page unless a troll.

jjj1980

I think I am going to have to strongly consider only using an insurer that will actually be able to confirm to me that I am fully insured despite a lack of Consent to Let. And if not in writing, at least say it over the phone and I could record the call. If I can't get this done, then on the overall balance of things I may have to just sell the house in the next few months. I think that's where we are at the moment.[/QUOTE]

^^^^This....

I work alongside the Mortgage Advisor at a brokerage and we also arrange all the required insurances. All the recent Landlord policies we have arranged have asked for proof of either the BTL mortgage or Consent To Let for the subject property. All the residential policies have stated that they would be invalidated by the applicant not using the property as their main residence.

Due to working in such an area, we have regular contact with estate agencies and they all ask for similar proof from the owner before they will agree to advertise/manage a property.