Want to let my property without Consent to Let?

mrginge

starbarboy wrote: »

Telling you that "others do it" does not constitute as advice - you can't place responsibility on someone else for your actions when you know that what you are doing is wrong.

Well done. You have completely missed the point.

Yorkie1

Tjrw1985 wrote: »

Hi, I used to work for a mortgage lender who would put the price up if they found out.

Now the only way they will find out, is if a payment is missed and they send out a so called "counselling agent" who finds out the property is tenanted, and if the agent gets no response then an electoral roll search was carried out.

The credit reference agencies are now offering a service e.g. to lenders, which tallies up individuals' records and will enable identification of non-disclosed landlords much more easily if desired.

It is blase to assume that there is no way the lender can find out. A disgruntled tenant, for starters. Redirection of post only lasts for a couple of years maximum.

sinbad182

Lets be honest here, the chances of getting found out are minimal.

It's up to the OP whether he is comfortable taking that minimal risk compared to the gains they will get from doing it.

R_P_W

I assume you want any mortgage correspondence sent to the address where you will be living and not to your tenants?

Friend of mine rented his property and gave them new address to send letters, 6 months later they wrote to him asking why he was not living at the property....so they are not stupid

Werdnal

sinbad182 wrote: »

Lets be honest here, the chances of getting found out are minimal.

It's up to the OP whether he is comfortable taking that minimal risk compared to the gains they will get from doing it.

And what gains are they then???? 60p a month profit on the rent, which could be wiped out 1000 fold by a couple months void, or a couple months without rent through a dodgy tenant (who incidentally may take great delight on informing on the LL's lack of consent to his lender).

Then there is a major repair bill if something goes wrong with the property. OP doesn't seem to have the disposible income or likely to achieve anywhere near the level of rent coming in to make this work, so the lack of CTL is pretty irrelevant really.

OP, is it leasehold? Have you checked your lease to see it you can actually let it?

sinbad182

Werdnal wrote: »

And what gains are they then???? 60p a month profit on the rent, which could be wiped out 1000 fold by a couple months void, or a couple months without rent through a dodgy tenant (who incidentally may take great delight on informing on the LL's lack of consent to his lender).

Then there is a major repair bill if something goes wrong with the property. OP doesn't seem to have the disposible income or likely to achieve anywhere near the level of rent coming in to make this work, so the lack of CTL is pretty irrelevant really.

OP, is it leasehold? Have you checked your lease to see it you can actually let it?

You've pretty much just said what the gains would be!

If the OP is a bit tight for cash (which it sounds as if they are) they're going to need any extra cash they can find in the event of repairs etc.

If they're intent on letting their property (however much of a bad idea this may be) and they're as skint as they sound, why on earth would they take the more expensive option? The problems you've listed would occur whether they have CTL or not so make little impact on the decision.

But as I say, they need to weigh this up against what they perceive the risk to be.

Werdnal

But what I am trying to say is OP does not seem to be able to afford to let it at all!

morpheusfire

Completely understand the OPs position.

I have a mortgage with HSBC on a residential property I bought 2 years ago.

Had to move jobs after 6 months and asked for CTL, which they granted for 12 months.

Requested CTL again in December which they granted again for 12 months.

Now I'm off their fixed rate and onto their variable rate, which they have generously reduced, I will rent out the property for the next 6 months until CTL runs out and then ask for it again.

Not sure if they will change my rate, regardless of whether they grant CTL or not (they didn't previously) because if they do then I will have to put some money down to change it to a buy-to-let.

My issue is that I have enough saved to put money down for another deposit, which I don't want to use on the original property (hoping to get CTL for a while and use it as an investment!)

What are peoples' thoughts on the chances of me getting another residential mortgage if I got CTL on the first one? (mine and my partner's salaries could cover both mortgages and my unsecured loan if necessary)

franklee

This thread acts as a reminder that tenants need to ask the landlord about consent to let before they take the property. Clearly a landlord would not expect to get repossessed (who does?) but with finances this shaky it's got to be a possibility. Any repossession puts the tenant in an awkward position as an unauthorised let isn't binding on the lender.

I notice no one advocating an unauthorised let stepping up to help the likes of the tenant in this thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4579615
who is facing a repossession only four months into a years fixed term, having to deal with uncooperative lenders and the court to establish if and when he will have to move as the tenancy isn't binding on the lender but is still binding on the tenant. With an authorised let he could just sit back and await being given notice in an orderly fashion under terms the tenancy allows.

Given the displaced tenant can also sue the agent for failing to check for consent I'd suggest an unauthorised let leaves the landlord dealing with the dodgier agents who are lax about referencing and dodgier tenants who aren't much bothered about following the rules (which cuts both ways).

As for how the lender could find out? experian mover alerts
http://www.experian.co.uk/consumer-information/mover-alerts-information.html
"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." Disgruntled tenant. Change of correspondence address. Disgruntled neighbours annoyed at living next door to a let property.

button409

Werdnal wrote: »

But what I am trying to say is OP does not seem to be able to afford to let it at all!

If we get CTL, then no I cannot afford to let out the property, which is what I was considering letting it without getting consent. Letting without this CTL would mean I am able to move, still cover my mortgage, as well as other costs (insurances etc) and make a small profit, to be saved in case anything went wrong wih the property.
I am not considering this option to make money, or to rip off my lender, I am considering because I have no other option, due to the downturn in the market.