Renting out current house and buying another?

gazfocus

assj wrote: »

Ok thanks keep me updated, I have got a lawyer now to deal with this for me, I hope to find a floor in the lease. Wish me luck.

Please do let us know how you get on but I'm sure the lease will be water tight.

[Deleted User]

The advice from my HA was wrong and we now have more details from their own solicitor.

The restriction in clause 3.15.1 is about sub-letting part of the premises: it does not apply to sub-letting the whole of the Property. However the prohibition from subletting arises from the fact that technically a shared ownership lease is a form of assured tenancy: to maintain assured tenancy status you have to live in the property as your only or main home. By failing to do so (as a consequence of subletting all the property) then security of tenure is lost and in theory the tenancy could be ended.

But again the news isn't so good! :-/

gazfocus

assj wrote: »

The advice from my HA was wrong and we now have more details from their own solicitor.

The restriction in clause 3.15.1 is about sub-letting part of the premises: it does not apply to sub-letting the whole of the Property. However the prohibition from subletting arises from the fact that technically a shared ownership lease is a form of assured tenancy: to maintain assured tenancy status you have to live in the property as your only or main home. By failing to do so (as a consequence of subletting all the property) then security of tenure is lost and in theory the tenancy could be ended.

But again the news isn't so good! :-/

I'm not entirely sure how they could end your tenancy though seeing as though you have half of the house.

leveller2911

gazfocus wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure how they could end your tenancy
though seeing as though you have half of the house.

Breach of contract (mortgage) and breach of tenancy .

The outcome would be exactly the same if they failed to pay the rent on the percentage not owned. People who buy a shared ownership property have the same rights/obligations as someone who rents 100% and this is written into all tenancy agreements and SO mortgages.

gazfocus

leveller2911 wrote: »

Breach of contract (mortgage) and breach of tenancy .

The outcome would be exactly the same if they failed to pay the rent on the percentage not owned. People who buy a shared ownership property have the same rights/obligations as someone who rents 100% and this is written into all tenancy agreements and SO mortgages.

I understand it would be breech of contract but they wouldn't be able to evict you. They would only be able to pursue you through the court to recover their losses. In this circumstance, there wouldn't be any losses for them to claim.

[Deleted User]

So what does that mean? They could evict us? Or are we looking at financial penalty? Many Thanks

leveller2911

gazfocus wrote: »

I understand it would be breech of contract but they
wouldn't be able to evict you. They would only be able to pursue you through the
court to recover their losses. In this circumstance, there wouldn't be any
losses for them to claim.

Breach of contract for tenancy would also be breach of contract for the mortgage each will have conditions relating to the other. They could evict the tenant and the mortgage company repo, sell and then persue of any shortfall... Both the tenancy agreement and mortgage contract on SO will have cluses to cover each other. Thats one of the joys of SO you staying in a house is dependant on adhering to 2 contracts not 1.

Your basically saying that tenancy wise someone can do as they wish because they own a % of a property.It doesn't work like that.

Sub Letting IMO will be your hurdle, you are the tenant , not someone you sub let the property to.

Good luck Gaz.

[Deleted User]

I see your point that we will remain the tenant and I agree.

I understand that some HO give consent for this and certainly lots of mortgage providers so long as the HO have confirmed this to them.

Our home is no longer viable, yet the con of shared ownership has left us with little choice but to retain this house - if we sold we would loose thousands of pounds and have a huge bill at the end :-/

leveller2911

assj wrote: »

Our home is no longer viable, yet the con of shared ownership has left us
with little choice but to retain this house - if we sold we would loose
thousands of pounds and have a huge bill at the end :-/

But if you keep the property and the market picks up you should build up equity. Negative equity etc is only a problem if you need to sell.

Why do you say "con of Shared ownership"?...... Shared ownership is just that, you share the ownership whilst having all the rights and obligations of tenants.

[Deleted User]

I'd love to keep the property and buy another (now that we can) however it looks like the HO may ruin our plan lol. I have my fingers crossed and unfortunately now have a bill of £210 per hour whilst the property lawyer looks to take on my case eekkk