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

franklee

Henman_Bill wrote: »

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

It sounds like you are relying on your extraordinarily low tracker rate to make the let viable which isn't a good plan as once you are committed to a tenancy you can't end it that quickly.

It's not so easy to sell a house with a tenant in-situ. It's their home so they can refuse viewings or leave the place untidy. Then you are either selling to an investor who wants a tenant in place and to pay a price low enough for it to be a viable let (in which case why not keep it yourself). Or you will need to evict the tenant before exchanging contracts the uncertainty and wait for which limits your choice of buyers. Not to mention the sale may fall through after you've given the tenant notice but before exchange of contracts meanwhile you'll be paying more for the mortgage.

You seem to have forgotten that a decent letting agent will ask to see proof of consent to let before taking you on so without consent you will be relying on a cowboy agent to manage your property whilst you are abroad. Can you trust them to reference the tenant adequately if they can't be bothered to check you out properly?

Not to mention a disgruntled tenant could report you. It's amazing how much digging a tenant may do when he has a grievance and he probably will when the cowboy agent messes up.

Thrugelmir

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.

Mortgage terms and conditions have a standard clause which specifically covers the issue of granting Consent To Let. You will find that the Lender reserves the right to grant permission at their discretion.

Unsure how you missed this clause.

By accepting the offer , you accepted the terms.

franklee

Henman_Bill wrote: »

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.

:rotfl:and in other news a snake oil salesman says snake oil is great for your health ....

qwert_yuiop

Henman_Bill wrote: »

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.



[/URL]

Well, Simon, two friends of mine were staying in a house and had a row with the landlord. One very wet day a soggy letter arrived from the bank and was lying half open on the mat. My friends realised the landlord was pulling exactly this dodge. So what did they do? Stopped paying the rent of course.

Thrugelmir

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

My friends realised the landlord was pulling exactly this dodge. So what did they do? Stopped paying the rent of course.

Tenant is still legally liable to pay the rent.

qwert_yuiop

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Tenant is still legally liable to pay the rent.

It did strengthen their negotiating hand somewhat.

Henman_Bill

franklee wrote: »

It sounds like you are relying on your extraordinarily low tracker rate to make the let viable which isn't a good plan as once you are committed to a tenancy you can't end it that quickly.

It's not so easy to sell a house with a tenant in-situ. It's their home so they can refuse viewings or leave the place untidy. Then you are either selling to an investor who wants a tenant in place and to pay a price low enough for it to be a viable let (in which case why not keep it yourself). Or you will need to evict the tenant before exchanging contracts the uncertainty and wait for which limits your choice of buyers. Not to mention the sale may fall through after you've given the tenant notice but before exchange of contracts meanwhile you'll be paying more for the mortgage.

You seem to have forgotten that a decent letting agent will ask to see proof of consent to let before taking you on so without consent you will be relying on a cowboy agent to manage your property whilst you are abroad. Can you trust them to reference the tenant adequately if they can't be bothered to check you out properly?

Not to mention a disgruntled tenant could report you. It's amazing how much digging a tenant may do when he has a grievance and he probably will when the cowboy agent messes up.

It is likely the interest rate will remain low for some years. If it goes up it is likely it will go up steadily rather than suddenly increase from 1% or less to 6% on one day so there will be time to react here. There is a risk of not selling the house quickly but it seems a very manageable risk. It's reasonably low risk that all the worst case scenarios occur all at once (bank finds out, nightmare tenant, interest rates rise). Would be very unlucky.

There is plenty of contingency in the plan as it stands. If interest rates rise it might move to a situation of investing now for future gain (rather than breaking even now and future gain) but still I would hardly be in trouble.

As for the agent, yes I want a reputable rather than cowboy agent. I will be looking towards the top of the range, definately not the cheapest. If I find that the first 2-3 agents I approach are insisting on consent to let then I may have to re-evaluate.

Thanks jj1980 for the useful info as well.

ognum

As for the agent, yes I want a reputable rather than cowboy agent. I will be looking towards the top of the range, definately not the cheapest. If I find that the first 2-3 agents I approach are insisting on consent to let then I may have to re-evaluate.

Thanks jj1980 for the useful info as well.[/QUOTE]

Can I suggest you find an agent through personal recommendation from both tenants and landlord.

Like in a lot of things expensive does not make them good!

My choice of agent would be a private company rather than a national chain. Look at Rightmove at the properties they list and whether they are like your and check how quickly they appear to be let.

Ask around for recommendations!

AFK_Matrix

Henman_Bill wrote: »

It is likely the interest rate will remain low for some years. If it goes up it is likely it will go up steadily rather than suddenly increase from 1% or less to 6% on one day so there will be time to react here. There is a risk of not selling the house quickly but it seems a very manageable risk. It's reasonably low risk that all the worst case scenarios occur all at once (bank finds out, nightmare tenant, interest rates rise). Would be very unlucky.

There is plenty of contingency in the plan as it stands. If interest rates rise it might move to a situation of investing now for future gain (rather than breaking even now and future gain) but still I would hardly be in trouble.

As for the agent, yes I want a reputable rather than cowboy agent. I will be looking towards the top of the range, definately not the cheapest. If I find that the first 2-3 agents I approach are insisting on consent to let then I may have to re-evaluate.

Thanks jj1980 for the useful info as well.

I'll point you to this thread in the mortgage area in regards to tracker mortgages not suddenly changing! -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4470099

As you can see some are facing a 4% increase or more in their mortgage, so it can happen and I would say it would probably scupper you good an proper if your bank did this. Just a warning that as your on a tracker it CAN change and very quickly!

neverdespairgirl

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Nah.

Remind them they've committed a criminal offence under Section 84 of the Postal Services Act 2000 by opening a letter addressed to someone else, but out of the kindness of your heart you won't be calling the Police down to arrest them.

And then evict.

That isn't the case. It's not a criminal offence just to open a letter addressed to someone else at all. The Postal Services Act 2000 s.84(3) provides:

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.

That's not just the opening, it's the intending to act to another's detriment AND no reasonable excuse.