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

stebiz

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Hopefully the LL does have CTL which will give you more protection if the mortgage lender does decide to repossess but unless either the LL or LA provides you with written proof than CTL has been granted you'll have no way of knowing for now.

We agree on something. :D

stebiz

BillJones wrote: »

Parenting advice, from you?

You are the last person who should give that, surely.

Well she certainly wouldn't take it from you Bill.

onamissionEU

If you have a valid tenancy agreement in place then the bank will generally honour this agreement regardless of CTL or arrears. CTL is not the issue here, the arrears are. If the bank (now that you have informed them) decide to take action with your landlord one of 2 things is likely to happen.


1: LL has to transfer to a BTL with a higher interest rate and will evict you to gain a higher rent to cover his costs or to leave the property as a residential property for personal use.
2: The bank will call the mortgage early or request the property made vacant for personal use only. You get evicted.


You may be lucky and the bank agrees CTL retrospectivly (generally speaking this would happen). But those who meddle and play with fire........


Your concerns regarding arrears are valid if you are looking for a property long term, though as a renter there is not really such a thing as "long term security". Especially when you p1ss off your LL... But EITHER WAY you are only ever 2 months away from eviction (after the fixed period) regardless of the financial situation with the LL/bank. Sticking your nose in will only ever result in one loser; YOU. Unless illegal activity is taking place you are almost always better off keeping your nose out.

The excuse of children opening post will not wash here are youo SHOULD have just put the letter back in the envelope and forwarded it on - you chose to fully read the post and share the info contained with 3rd parties. You are very unlikely to encounter trouble but the LL would be even more inclined to turf you out.


The tax situation is not really your concern unless you are paying the LL directly. Here the LA should take care of it though it is very possible the LL has exemption from HMRC (a LL can request this directly without any issue).


I too would suggest you start looking for another home though. Either through a reposession or (more likely and much quicker) through evection, I think you are not long for this property...

michaelaet85

What utter rot, a tenancy agreement from a landlord. Without consent to let in the eyes if the court is not valid. The interests of the bank in such case supercede a tenants supposed rightss and it will hinge on how sympathetic the judge is as to how long we can stay . 2 months being the absolute max. A consent to let means my tenancy is binding on.the court and. Bank have to honour remainihg tenancy or sell it with us a tenant s in situ. The correspondancehas been forwarded on along with other unopened letters.. and. Landlord cannot evict me part way through my tenancy either..

Some people seriously on their high horse spouting rot here

akuma

michaelaet85 wrote: »

What utter rot, a tenancy agreement from a landlord. Without consent to let in the eyes if the court is not valid. The interests of the bank in such case supercede a tenants supposed rightss and it will hinge on how sympathetic the judge is as to how long we can stay . 2 months being the absolute max. A consent to let means my tenancy is binding on.the court and. Bank have to honour remainihg tenancy or sell it with us a tenant s in situ. The correspondancehas been forwarded on along with other unopened letters.. and. Landlord cannot evict me part way through my tenancy either..

Some people seriously on their high horse spouting rot here

What have you gained by reading someone else's post besides stress ?

michaelaet85

Just as an aside we pay the current market rate for a property of that size etc so landld trying to increase the rent... Well good luck as they are unlikely to get it

michaelaet85

Forewarned is forearmed. We were intending this weekend to go out and buy wallpapers and paints to the tune of several hundreds of pounds to decorate two bedrooms.. so won't be bothering now!

antrobus

onamissionEU wrote: »

....Opening post, as already explained, is illegal. ....

It depends. Postal operators deliver mail to addresses not individuals. If you live it at No 22 Railway Cuttings, East Cheam and a piece of mail arrives at yout home addresessed to No 22 Railway Cuttings, East Cheam it has been 'correctly delivered' by the postal operator irrespective of whose name is on it, and you are perfectly entitled to open said piece of mail.

onamissionEU wrote: »

...- you chose to fully read the post and the break the DPA by sharing the info contained with 3rd parties. ...

Break the Data Protection Act? What are you on about? I doubt very much if the OP is 'processing personal data' as defined by the DPA 1998.

SerialRenter

If the landlord does have consent to let, then the tenancy will be honoured by the bank in the case of a repossession, although they may only honour that as far as the break clause.

If the didn't have consent to let and the bank wants to repossess, then the situation is worse and it'll be a game of delaying the repossession.

Shelter has some advice on the scenarios here:

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/repossession/about_repossession/repossession_by_a_landlords_lender

michaelaet85

Thank you serial renter.. someone singing from the same hymn sheet