Suspect landlords doesn't have banks consent to let... mortgage arrears of 7k

donfanatico

stebiz wrote: »

I own a number of properties through my business and all mail comes to my home address. However I must say I'd be a bit miffed if a private letter arrived at the tenants address and they opened it.

The fact is it is personal. It's sad to see so many individuals finding it acceptable to open others mail. Standards are slipping. Let's just hope one day they read something they wish they hadn't.

actually, i was pulling your leg, I don't open mail, I collect it and asked the LL if he wanted it or not. He picked it up eventually after trying really hard and threatening to throw it away if he didn't as it was a pile of about a foot high.
The issue with the repo was noticed as the letter were sent to the occupier so I did open that one luckily and as advised here by many not to ignore letters addressed to occupier for exactly those reasons.

But , the best I would do to any other post would be to chuck it in the bin.

Anyway, enough of this sidetracking, let's get back to OPs problem. Do you have any advice?

Mine would be to check if the LL has CTL or not

stebiz

donfanatico wrote: »

Anyway, enough of this sidetracking, let's get back to OPs problem. Do you have any advice?

Mine would be to check if the LL has CTL or not

Anything other than a copy of the letter giving permission from the lender would make me extremely uneasy. Add to that the fact they owed so much shows they have financial problems and I wouldn't be looking at the property in the long term.

donfanatico

stebiz wrote: »

Anything other than a copy of the letter giving permission from the lender would make me extremely uneasy. Add to that the fact they owed so much shows they have financial problems and I wouldn't be looking at the property in the long term.

long term definitely not but if the LL does have CTL then at least the bank will become the new LL and then either sell in situ, honour the existing tenancy or at least try to bribe them into moving early (not sure if they would do the last one)

michaelaet85

Its a question of knowing where we stand even just for the next few months. Would there be repercussions for the agents who are members of arla and property ombudsman if they were to sign aletter stating they could comfirm owner had consent to let when they didn't and it was a pack of lies???

Also the estate agent clearly said in his phone call this morning that the owners did not haveBTL mortgage but theyhad obtained consent to let from the bank. A look at the mortgage companies website in the FAQ section statez anyone wishkng to rent out on a residential mortgage must switch to a buy to let mortgage.... Again this leads me to suggest the EA is spouting verbal diarrhoea

RAS

Consent to let is often granted rather than a BTL mortgage, particularly when people need to let for short periods (overseas posting etc).

Tell them you want a copy of the consent letter.

michaelaet85

Apparently the mortgage company won't issue one to me due to data protection says estate agent. But in same breath he claims he has authorisation to speak to the lender and they comfirmed consent to let on the phone to him.. IF that is the case then surely mortgage company could send him a copy of the consent to let which he could show to me... ?????

michaelaet85

Also its not a short let, from what I ascertain the property has always been let to a host of tenants since the day it was purchased 7 years ago!

Yorkie1

Stebiz you have conveniently forgotten to refer to the final element of the mail opening offence, which is the mental element of intending to act to another's detriment.

Firstly, the 2 year old opened the mail. An under 10 year old cannot in law be criminally liable in any event.

Secondly, the mail had been correctly addressed to the address.

Thirdly, in the absence of malicious intent then no offence is committed. Accident does not equate to malicious intent.

Please try to get your facts right before you lecture others.

allthingsmustpass

michaelaet85 wrote: »

But in same breath he claims he has authorisation to speak to the lender and they comfirmed consent to let on the phone to him.. IF that is the case

Step 1. Assume every single thing an estate agent says is a lie. Don't even consider the possibility they are not lying to you. That will save you some time. No need to think 'well if thats true then the other is true and how can that be?' Waste of time.

Estate agents lie all the time. Assume they are lying in every single statement they make. If an estate agent says 'good morning' there is NO DOUBT that it is the afternoon.

Start from there.

stebiz

Yorkie1 wrote: »

Stebiz you have conveniently forgotten to refer to the final element of the mail opening offence, which is the mental element of intending to act to another's detriment.

Firstly, the 2 year old opened the mail. An under 10 year old cannot in law be criminally liable in any event.

Secondly, the mail had been correctly addressed to the address.

Thirdly, in the absence of malicious intent then no offence is committed. Accident does not equate to malicious intent.

Please try to get your facts right before you lecture others.

Oh dear, somebody doesn't understand law. Let me spell it out

“A person commits an offence if intending to act to a person’s detriment and without reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.”

So although a 2 year old can't be held responsible. If he/she continues to open mail, which would be to the detriment of the Landlord (as I guess the Landlord would prefer they didn't know his affairs) without a reasonable excuse they are breaking the law, as it should have been delivered to the Landlord - as it was said the Lender sent to the wrong address.