consent to let issue

krissy08

My partner is selling a house he let out. An offer has been accepted on the property. It is let out with the tenant due to vacate the property in 3 weeks before the sale is completed. Is there any reason for the mortgage company to discover this as he had no consent to let in place. It was fully disclosed for tax purposes

TheFactory

I hope the Mortgage provider does find out and he gets stung for all the interest he owes, its called fraud don't you know?

Why should I be doing it all legit and paying loads more than the SVR when people like your partner is getting away with it!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!!!

reformedEffortmaker

Krissy, I cant see why they would find out if the tenants will move on with no bother. If it has sold and they are going to get the mortgage balance paid off, not sure why they would care either

Yorkie1

I see no reason why they should find out.

It is not mortgage fraud if you lived in the property before letting it out. Fraud only occurs if you lie at the outset to obtain the mortgage. Although it is breach of contract.

G_M

krissy08 wrote: »

My partner is selling a house he let out. An offer has been accepted on the property. It is let out with the tenant due to vacate the property in 3 weeks before the sale is completed. Is there any reason for the mortgage company to discover this as he had no consent to let in place. It was fully disclosed for tax purposes

And if they don't vacate?

Has he Exchanged?

Werdnal

Unlikely, but not impossible that they would find out.

How sure are you that tenant will actually be leaving in 3 weeks time? Who issued notice and what form did it take?

Is he also aware he may be liable for CGT?

brit1234

Yorkie1 wrote: »

I see no reason why they should find out.

It is not mortgage fraud if you lived in the property before letting it out. Fraud only occurs if you lie at the outset to obtain the mortgage. Although it is breach of contract.

:think:

No that is not correct. Its not fraud by representation but fraud by failing to disclose information.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/3

krissy08

Thank you,

He lived there for a number of years, the tenant was served a section 21 and 8 and indicates they will move out but I guess you never know. The good thing though is that the buyer actually wants the tenant to stay as they are investors.

Hoping to complete in about 6 weeks but thought I would ask for thoughts on here.

Werdnal

Your buyer's solicitor should not even allow them to exchange, never mind complete, until you can confirm vacant possession - unless as you say, they are buying with the specific intention to keep the tenant, so will have a BTL mortgage.

However, if you have served the tenant a Section 8, that suggests the tenant has somehow breached the tenancy, so may not be attractive to the buyer/new landlord anyway.

Are you sure the S21/8 were correctly served and dated, as failure to get everything spot on could result in the notice being invalid and therefore, if tenant does not leave and you have to proceed to court, it could be thrown out.

Did tenant pay deposit and, assuming tenancy started after April 2007, is it protected and did LL serve him with the full prescribed information?

ValHaller

brit1234 wrote: »

:think:

No that is not correct. Its not fraud by representation but fraud by failing to disclose information.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/3

In this case, I don't see it to be a crime. The legislation is a tad out of kilter with reality.

krissy08

The sections 8 and 21 were properly served. Tenant didn't pay any deposit because they are council tenants.