Being caught for not asking for Consent To Let

gazter

marksoton wrote: »

.... 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.

You would be warned over and over, you might be served with a notice to do the work, the council might serve you a notice and do the work for you and ask for a bill. At this point you might end up in court if you fail to pay it.

But prosecuted? No, not unless you repeatedly ignore the warnings and refuse to co-operate.

marksoton

gazter wrote: »

You would be warned over and over, you might be served with a notice to do the work, the council might serve you a notice and do the work for you and ask for a bill. At this point you might end up in court if you fail to pay it.

But prosecuted? No, not unless you repeatedly ignore the warnings and refuse to co-operate.

Rubbish. A prohibition notice can be served immediately.

BobQ

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.

What risk are you taking by asking?

Another possible consequence is the mortgage provider takes action to recover the loss of mortgage income (if they usually charge a higher rate for let properties).

But suppose they just ask you to repay the mortgage? You may have to take out a BTL mortgage? You may have to find more capital to meet the requirements of the lender.

What do you think will happen next time you apply for a mortgage on your own home?

Fean0r

marksoton wrote: »

Rubbish. A prohibition notice can be served immediately.

Can be. In practice, laws are enforced by degree of offence. The authorities just won't prosecute for minor safety issues without giving the offending party the chance to fix them.

So the question is to what degree insurance would be invalidated by not having CTL; I'm not sure that cover for third parties (ie tenants and others) would be invalidated. And it would also depend on how serious a "safety" issue partially or fully invalidated insurance would be. Frankly, I suspect none of us know and would be just speculating.

Fean0r

BobQ wrote: »

What risk are you taking by asking?

As said in a later post, they could either refuse - or, more likely, allow it for 1-2 years and then ask you to switch to BTL. But if you then have to come back after 3 years, you'd have to remortgage again as you can't live in a BTL property you own.

But not letting it will also result in invalidated insurance as it'd be standing empty too long.

franklee

Here's an example where the OP gets caught and returns with a follow up posting the outcome:
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?418518-NRAM-No-Consent-to-Let-any-advice

Fean0r

Interesting, thanks. It sounds like it precipitated a financial reckoning that was anyway coming. By the sounds of it the lack of CTL wasn't really a factor in the end.

To respond to some of the other concerns about consequences raised in other replies above, there can be all sorts of serious consequences for minor misdemeanours. You can get sued for a lot of money for bittorrenting a few films - but still, most people do it anyway despite a large number of well reported cases. I'm not too fussed about worst case scenarios with a risk of 1 in a million or less.

franklee

Fean0r wrote: »

Interesting, thanks. It sounds like it precipitated a financial reckoning that was anyway coming. By the sounds of it the lack of CTL wasn't really a factor in the end.

Well he was in a financial hole so couldn't meet consent to let criteria thus when discovered he had little option. However if his financial situation had been better there would have been no problem as he would have been able to afford CTL or a BTL mortgage. So basically failing the CTL criteria should be a big red flag that letting isn't affordable and if you then go ahead an exit strategy is potentially not there. OTOH if you can afford CTL then why not get it? Why take the risk to save a few pounds per month when the penalties of getting caught are more. As for how to get caught:

Lenders trawling electoral roll

Lenders signing up to Experian mover alerts:http://www.experian.co.uk/consumer-information/mover-alerts-information.html

Tenants spilling the beans.

Tenants returning landlord's mail to sender.

etc.

gazter

marksoton wrote: »

Rubbish. A prohibition notice can be served immediately.

And when as that ever happened? A clue: never.

It's softly softly until you refuse to play ball, then its a bit of carrot and stick, then its a few notices about needing to do repairs etc, and then a prohibition notice.

Only under the most extreme cases would it jump straight to that, and im talking slum landlord extremes.

Thrugelmir

Fean0r wrote: »

I'm not too fussed about worst case scenarios with a risk of 1 in a million or less.

All it takes is one vindictive tenant.