Another Consent to Let question....

Flyer333

Hi all.
Sorry for another Consent to Let thread but....

As some of you may know, I have had to move out of my property because the landlord did not have consent to let, and the property is going to be repossessed.

I am moving into a new place, it has been agreed that I will move in in a couple of weeks time.
Our initial agreement, was that they would provide me with proof that the landlord has consent to let the property.

Now I am a couple of weeks away from moving and after a bit of to/fro with the agent (TPO and ARLA registered by the way), he has just stated that I am not going to get written confirmation that he has permission from the lender to let the property, and 'he has been a valued customer for 5 years'

I have checked Land Registry and his address is showing as:
<name> of <this flat address> and of <another address>

Please can someone advise on what my next step should be?
Should I press the agent to obtain the confirmation?

Advice would be appreciated.

Flyer333

In addition to the above, I have been sent a Section 21 form to sign along with the tenancy agreement. I have yet to sign either of these until my issues are clarified.

With regards to the Section 21, I was under the impression that my deposit had to first be placed in a protected scheme before I am given this to sign.

Can anyone advise on this, or on my above post?

G_M

The fact that the Land Reg address for the LL is differet to the property address is indicative that he has CTL or a BTL mortgage. It is not proof.

How far you wish to press this is up to you.

You could also ask to see his insurance policy which would indicate whether cover included a let property- another sign of a 'good' LL.But again, not proof, and he may refuse to show you.

A S21 is invalid if
* it is served before or (arguable) at the same time as the tenancy is signed OR
* before any deposit paid is registered

So it does no harm (and may in fact benefit you!) to sign this worthless peice of paper!
*

Flyer333

cheers for the responses

Regarding consent to let, it is covered in the tenancy agreement that
'The landlord:
....
...
..has provided all necessary consents to let the property'

So if this unfortunate event does happen, it would be a straightforward breach of the contract

Flyer333

I would be pursuing the letting agent rather than the lender, as this is their contract and they have assured me they have carried out all the necessary checks.