Being caught for not asking for Consent To Let

Fean0r

Are there any real examples of anyone being caught for not getting Consent To Let?

I know everyone asks whether they need it. I know you do, and that the advise is not to risk not getting it.

But in some cases you're taking a risk just by asking for it. But, frankly, I doubt anyone's ever caught unless they're really daft. So I'd be curious to know if anyone knows of any stories.

theartfullodger

There was a case I think in Scotland where the property was repossessed by the lender.

As they have the right to do so.

Much more common is a big increase in interest rates. And likely no mortgage lender will want to do business with you in future.

marksoton

Fean0r wrote: »

Are there any real examples of anyone being caught for not getting Consent To Let?

I know everyone asks whether they need it. I know you do, and that the advise is not to risk not getting it.

But in some cases you're taking a risk just by asking for it. But, frankly, I doubt anyone's ever caught unless they're really daft. So I'd be curious to know if anyone knows of any stories.

It's not just the lender you need to worry about.

Insurance and the fact you're flouting prescribed landlord legislation could potentially bring the whole thing crumbling down on more than a few fronts. Both criminal and financial.

G_M

People tend not to discuss their misdemeanors once they've been caught, so I'd not expect to find anyone posting here saying "I've been caught."

But I agree it's probobly rare. How rare I couldn't say, but like any illegal act or any civil breach one contemplates, you have to weigh up the risk, potential benefit, potential penalty, and morality of the act.

There are numerous potential ways the lender could find out.

Not sure about 'flouting landlord leglislation'. Yes, OP may be contemplating do this as well, but he's given no indication of it....

gazter

theartfullodger wrote: »

There was a case I think in Scotland where the property was repossessed by the lender.

As they have the right to do so.

Much more common is a big increase in interest rates. And likely no mortgage lender will want to do business with you in future.

Both of these surely would only be in the most egregious of cases, and not of people failing to get consent to let, but purposely buying properties to let and getting residential mortgages.

Essentially committing mortgage fraud.

Has there ever been any serious repercussions of a home owner failing to notify of a change of circumstances and renting out their home without permission? Other then the loss of a fixed deal etc.

gazter

marksoton wrote: »

It's not just the lender you need to worry about.

Insurance and the fact you're flouting prescribed landlord legislation could potentially bring the whole thing crumbling down on more than a few fronts. Both criminal and financial.

Really? The most serious consequences for the insurance of course is it not being valid, but criminal? In terms of landlord legislation, prosecutions only happen when landlords fail to carry out their necessary duties, despite being warned.

Brown_Eyed_Girl

From a mortgage perspective, it gets tricky if the lender needs to repossess the property but there are tenants with rights. That situation you'd be in a whole pile of nightmare fun.

When talking to my mortgage adviser I asked what would happen if I needed to let for any reason - job, new partner etc. They said most lenders are fine with it if you can explain. Ultimately, if your circumstances change and you still need to pay the mortgage, it's in their interest to let you get some rent in. More of a faff for them to take it and risk selling at a price.

If it's a worry about something in your lease and the freeholder finding out, much more likely to happen I imagine as any mantance issue will involve them getting in touch with the person in the property.

Senior_Paper_Monitor

The ever growing (two way) relationship between lenders and HMRC ?

Nah nothing to worry about !

Brown_Eyed_Girl

gazter wrote: »

Really? The most serious consequences for the insurance of course is it not being valid, but criminal? In terms of landlord legislation, prosecutions only happen when landlords fail to carry out their necessary duties, despite being warned.

Yup, would invalidate your insurance if you didn't tell them, meaning you couldn't claim and you'd have to declare it every time you went for new insurance (i think for anything as it might come under fraud) therefore you'll be paying a premium

marksoton

gazter wrote: »

Really? The most serious consequences for the insurance of course is it not being valid, but criminal? In terms of landlord legislation, prosecutions only happen when landlords fail to carry out their necessary duties, despite being warned.

.... Or inadequate insurance.

Warned? What are you on about. If i rent out a property that's unsafe do you not think i'd be criminally prosecuted? I wouldn't be warned first and slapped on the wrist.

Fean0r

Thanks all.

My "unless they've been really daft" was meant to include egregious cases where they've basically done it with multiple properties with the intention of making money on proper BTL.

I'm just talking about going away for a few years and letting your main home. You can't reasonably take out a BTL, cause if you need to come back you'd have to remortgage again as you can't live in your own property if you have a BTL mortgage on it. (Or so I've been told.) And cause it's the owner's main residence it's not exactly bought to let, either. But if you ask for CTL, and get turned down, it leaves you in a catch-22. You can't even just pay the mortgage while you're away and leave it empty cause that will also render your insurance invalid.

I dunno about people not talking about things if they've been caught. Some are good enough to speak up and warn people from making the same mistake as them, IMO. Maybe a minority, admittedly.