Landlord did not tell provider - Tenants rights?

TartanSaver

I stand corrected. I understood that the change in the law (in 2010) protected tenants in these circumstances. Turns out it only does so if the landlord had a btl mortgage or had been given permission for the property to be let.

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

This means the lender can evict following repossession in your circumstances. That's what I get for believing law changes to protect tenants would actually work...

Foxy-Stoat_3

Wonder if tenants should insist on seeing the mortgage agreement/consent to let confirmation before signing new AST's.....sounds like they should !

GULP

SeduLOUs

Only applying common sense and no legal expertise, but even if the lender is not liable to maintain the contract, a contract was still in existance between tenant and landlord.

So if house was repossessed and tenants booted, could tenants sue landlord for breach of contract (and return of deposit etc)? Whether this will be fruitful is another question entirely (but even if LL can't pay it could still result in a CCJ and scupper his future mortgage plans).

It doesn't seem logical to me that tenant would be left without any recourse whatsoever for irresponsible actions of LL.

Foxy-Stoat_3

SeduLOUs wrote: »

So if house was repossessed and tenants booted, could tenants sue landlord for breach of contract (and return of deposit etc)? Whether this will be fruitful is another question entirely (but even if LL can't pay it could still result in a CCJ and scupper his future mortgage plans).

It doesn't seem logical to me that tenant would be left without any recourse whatsoever for irresponsible actions of LL.

Tenants would have recourse as you stated, but you have to way up the likelihood of actually getting paid against the extra time and stress in going to court.

Unless providing a tenancy agreement when you don't have consent is a criminal offense.

Pixie5740

I'm no solicitor but I think it has something to do with the contract between the LL and the mortgagee existed before the contract between the LL and the T.


I'm not sure if the T has any comeback on the LL. Quite possibly but if the LL is in the situation where the mortgagee is repossessing the property then the LL is probably already up the proverbial creek without a paddle with other creditors snapping at their heels.

kingstreet

If you look at the sticky at the top of this forum, you'll see "House Buying: Important Threads" and in it, you'll find this;-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1377883

Legolasoftheshire

Thanks for the comments guys.

I thought I had everything covered but it didn't even occur to me to ask to see the mortgage agreement/consent to let confirmation!

I'm quite confident our landlord wouldn't run into financial problems to point where they wouldn't pay the mortgage. The property was actually empty for months before we moved in.

But they are saying if this mortgage isn't approved then we would have to leave??

I heard that the mortgage provider could demand the mortgage be paid up in full within 30 days?

If this is the case and the property does end up being repossessed by the lender, could we take the landlord to court to recover all the expenses of having to move again?

If the contract becomes void does that also mean we lose the deposit?

Foxy-Stoat_3

Legolasoftheshire wrote: »

But they are saying if this mortgage isn't approved then we would have to leave?? - Depends on the lender, IF they would not give consent, IF they decide that they want to repossess, IF they decide that they don't want to collect your rent that you are willing to pay them, IF they go to court, IF the Judge rules in their favour.....too many IF's to worry about

I heard that the mortgage provider could demand the mortgage be paid up in full within 30 days? - I wouldn't worry about things that you hear...only worry about things that you know.

If this is the case and the property does end up being repossessed by the lender, could we take the landlord to court to recover all the expenses of having to move again? - Very probably!

If the contract becomes void does that also mean we lose the deposit? - The Landlord would be daft not to refund your deposit as you could sue him for 3 times that amount.

Hope this helps

Legolasoftheshire

Foxy-Stoat wrote: »

Hope this helps

Very helpful, thank you so much

Foxy-Stoat_3

Keep us posted, sounds like you do need to have a meeting as soon as possible as under the new laws you are exposed if the Landlord has let the property without consent.

Get some legal advice also and start looking for another place to rent as a back up.