Buy to let mortgage - tenant conditions

Pixie5740

nudda wrote: »

You are jumping ahead. The landlord wants to keep the tenants on but is being forced by new BTL mortgage to replace the tenants because they are on housing benfeit. Of course the landlord can evict tenants for any reason - goes without saying.

I am not jumping the gun, I was merely pointing out that it doesn't matter what kind of documents online you find online to reference the T&C of the mortgage are what they are, and if the landlord wants to evict (s)he can. The landlord has, for whatever reason, chosen a mortgage product that does not allow the property to be let to tenants in receipt of housing benefit even though (s)he already has tenants who claim housing benefit. This leaves the landlord with the choices of evicting the tenants and finding new ones who don't require housing benefit to pay the rent, or ignoring the T&C of the mortgage.

silvercar

Pixie5740 wrote: »

I am not jumping the gun, I was merely pointing out that it doesn't matter what kind of documents online you find online to reference the T&C of the mortgage are what they are, and if the landlord wants to evict (s)he can. The landlord has, for whatever reason, chosen a mortgage product that does not allow the property to be let to tenants in receipt of housing benefit even though (s)he already has tenants who claim housing benefit. This leaves the landlord with the choices of evicting the tenants and finding new ones who don't require housing benefit to pay the rent, or ignoring the T&C of the mortgage.

To add to the complexity. The lender must have agreed to the borrower purchasing the property with a tenant in situ rather than vacant possession (not unknown in a BTL situation). The question is then whether the lender agreed to this with the provision that the tenancy qualifies under the lender's T&Cs, or whether the lender said it was OK to have a tenant in situ provided the property was let under an AST.

silvercar

Pixie5740 wrote: »

It's a good job the DSS hasn't existed since 2001 then.

Under universal credit there won't even be 'housing benefit' it will be the 'housing element of universal credit'.

No way that a landlord (or lender) will have a right to know what elements form the universal credit paid to a tenant.

nudda

Pixie5740 wrote: »

The landlord has, for whatever reason, chosen a mortgage product that does not allow the property to be let to tenants in receipt of housing benefit even though (s)he already has tenants who claim housing benefit.

You have once again jumped ahead with assumptions. I have spoken to the lender in question and they have confirmed to me that there are no stipulations for the type of tenants they can engage with other than that they cannot be family. I'm with newbie1980 when he/she says it looks like the landlord just wants to be paid more rent.

Pixie5740

nudda wrote: »

You have once again jumped ahead with assumptions. I have spoken to the lender in question and they have confirmed to me that there are no stipulations for the type of tenants they can engage with other than that they cannot be family. I'm with newbie1980 when he/she says it looks like the landlord just wants to be paid more rent.

Going back to my first post then does it really matter? Maybe the landlord just wants rid of these tenants and is using the mortgage as a daft excuse to do it rather than just admitting (s)he wants them gone. What you find online and can reference is irrelevant.

Pixie5740

I assume these are the tenants to whom you are referring in your OP?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5759398

The landlord doesn't seem particularly keen to keep your parents as tenants.