No consent to let - Direct Line Insurance

franklee

citricsquid wrote: »

Mortgage providers have an easy time finding out about situations like this, one letter to "your house" and a nosey tenant and it all falls apart.

Such as Experian mover alerts.

http://www.experian.co.uk/consumer-information/mover-alerts-information.html
"Mover Alerts matches addresses in your customer portfolio to addresses of properties that have been put up for sale or rent.
....
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."

Plus the tenant will go on the electoral roll, sign up for council tax, utilities etc. Meanwhile the landlord who moves out is removed from the above.

Also if the landlord falls into arrears due to a void or non-paying tenant then I'd bet that's the point at which the lender takes a close look at their files so things come to light just at the time when the landlord is struggling.

dacouch

bobby_davro wrote: »

Unfortunately bought the house in 2007, so no equity to move to BTL and the costs to move to CTL from Halifax is extortianate. (currently on SVR)

Still not 100% sure what that mortgage paragraph means. Who is expected to pay the additional premium to direct line. Myself or Halifax? How could it possibly be an increased risk to the insurance company if there is consent or not from Halifax.

As Direct Line do residential and LL insurance, i'm hoping it goes under the radar if it ever gets placed on file.

The mortgage provider agrees to pay the additional premium in return for the non invalidation clause.

As I said you need to read it in context of the non invalidation clause eg

"11 Non-Invalidation
This insurance will not be invalidated by any act or omission or by
any alteration whereby the risk of Damage is increased unknown
to You or beyond Your control provided that You immediately
give notice to Us as soon as You become aware of the above and
pay an additional premium if required."

Direct Line do indeed offer private residential and landlord policies, if they're like most other companies their policy numbers will start with a different prefix eg possibly DL1000000 for home and RPO10000 for landlords policies. If they do then it would be fairly unusual for the staff at the mortgage company to not know the difference.

sarah_id1

Reading other thread on this topic it appears that even thought this would be a landlord insurance, without Consent To Let from the Mortgage provider it would be Invalid.

dacouch

sarah_id1 wrote: »

Reading other thread on this topic it appears that even thought this would be a landlord insurance, without Consent To Let from the Mortgage provider it would be Invalid.

Why would it be void?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

citricsquid wrote: »

CTL does not just exist to extort money from you, it is an important part of the mortgage system. .

Utter tosh.

At the majority of banks CTL used to be granted routinely, with at most, a couple of hundred quid admin charge and no change to rates.

It is now being used to extort money from homeowners for no reason other than shameless bankster profiteering, as the risk profile and default rates for CTL properties and O/O properties are virtually identical.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

sarah_id1 wrote: »

Reading other thread on this topic it appears that even thought this would be a landlord insurance, without Consent To Let from the Mortgage provider it would be Invalid.

Wrong.

If you buy LL insurance it's valid regardless of mortgage status.

bobby_davro_2

Hadn't seen this before, but quite interesting.
http://www.directlineforbusiness.co.uk/knowledge-centre/guidance-for-landlords/consent-to-let-faqs

Although it starts off with you MUST have consent to let from your bank. At no point does it say your insurance is invalid, when it was the perfect time to do so. (But it does make it clear it is invalid if you don't tell your insurer you are letting)
OK, it says the bank will get annoyed if they find out - but i can deal with that separately.
My biggest fear was always if the house burnt down, would i be stuffed. By reading this, i think i should be OK.

In retrospect, i should have taken KingStreets advice from last year, and took a 3 year product and at a later stage ask for CTL. But it completely slipped my mind.
@KingStreet, if i was to approach Halifax with this option now, would i just be highlighting the LL insurance aspect, or would it be go through a separate team?


Seems to be a lot of negativity on this thread. Thousands of people in the same situation as me are doing this, but i'm just trying to be upfront about it and get some advice to help.
I'm not doing this to make any money, if i could sell and get anything close to what i paid, then i would.

Takeaway_Addict

thousands doing it doesn't make it right though

Thousands burgle houses...

harrys_dad

It is illegal but you do not seem to care. Shame on you.

sarah_id1

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Wrong.

If you buy LL insurance it's valid regardless of mortgage status.

So why would a landlord want to switch from "buy to live" to "buy to let" and get the rate increased! Surely its a loss for that landlord. Its best to just get LL insurance.