Landlord wants to take over all bills to get a mortgage

G_M

madvicker wrote: »

Yes, properties do come with bills included, but this does not appear to be the case here - the tenancy agreement is likely to indicate that the tenant is responsible for the bills. The OP has already accepted responsibility for the bills - so he is legally obliged for them now. Unless this obligation is transferred to the landlord through [STRIKE]the utility companies [/STRIKE]AND the tenancy agreement, then this will not change .

The transfer of the tenant's obligaton for bills to the landlord does not require the utility companies' consent!


The LL and tenant simply inform the utility companies that liability has changed, and provide relevant meter readings, and then change the liability back.


Exactly as when new tenant moves in.

Comms69

madvicker wrote: »

Yes, properties do come with bills included, but this does not appear to be the case here - the tenancy agreement is likely to indicate that the tenant is responsible for the bills. - and that is being amended by mutual consent... The OP has already accepted responsibility for the bills - so he is legally obliged for them now. Unless this obligation is transferred to the landlord through the utility companies AND the tenancy agreement, then this will not change and the OP is taking on the risk of the landlord not paying. - No. The tenancy agreement does not need to be amended, just a separate agreement (preferably in writing) that the LL will pay the bills. The LL can then set up a new account with utilities etc.

In reference to complicity - see the post above about BTL vs Residential mortgages. - I'm seeing G_M's post... I already said it's fairly obvious why he's doing it, just that it has no impact on the tenant in terms of criminal liability.

So, no. I am not talking nonsense - you are simply giving bad advice.

We'll agree to disagree....

Comms69

G_M wrote: »

The transfer of the tenant's obligaton for bills to the landlord does not require the utility companies' consent!


The LL and tenant simply inform the utility companies that liability has changed, and provide relevant meter readings, and then change the liability back.


Exactly as when new tenant moves in.

we cant both be missing something, can we?


I really don't understand the extreme reluctance to agree to this from other posters. Sure there's some risk if the LL doesn't pay the mortgage, but it's fairly low.

Throwaway1

Comms69 wrote: »

we cant both be missing something, can we?


I really don't understand the extreme reluctance to agree to this from other posters. Sure there's some risk if the LL doesn't pay the mortgage, but it's fairly low.

I suspect it's a moral one as we all pretty much know the LL is up to something dodgy and would rather stay well away, even if the tenant is not legally responsible for the LL's actions and would save a bit of money.

Rosemary7391

Throwaway1 wrote: »

I suspect it's a moral one as we all pretty much know the LL is up to something dodgy and would rather stay well away, even if the tenant is not legally responsible for the LL's actions and would save a bit of money.

Also a practical one. I'd be quite surprised if this was the only somewhat dodgy practice of this LL. Even if it's just some extreme naivety or cluelessness, that doesn't bode well.

G_M

I agree there may be a moral dimension to this - but generally my posts try (acccurately or otherwise!) to advise on the legal posttion.

And in that respect I stand by my posts above.

Whether the OP should agree, is a matter for him/her. OP also specifically stated:

don't want to cause any friction between me and the landlord.

which is another factor tto take into account. Friendly LL/tenant relations are well worth maintaining where possible.

I'd be quite surprised if this was the only somewhat dodgy practice of this LL.

Conjecture.
Yes, maybe

* an income tax issue - we don't know and it's not the tenant's job to dig around, jeopadising his tenancy in the process.
* deposit issue. Well, if not protected that helps the tenant
* etc etc

00ec25

Comms69 wrote: »

Plenty of properties are bills included, the OP wouldn't be complicit in anything.

and since we can assume a likely reason for the request is, as other shave already stated, the LL is looking to get a residential mortgage, yes the OP would be complicit in mortgage fraud since the LL taking over bills for a short period is very obviously an unusual situation and the LL has already said it is so he can get a mortgage...

G_M

00ec25 wrote: »

and since we can assume a likely reason for the request is, as other shave already stated, the LL is looking to get a residential mortgage, yes the OP would be complicit in mortgage fraud since the LL taking over bills for a short period is very obviously an unusual situation and the LL has already said it is so he can get a mortgage...

But the tenant, not being a home-owner/mortgagee, cannot be expected to understand the intricacies of mortgage products or the distinctions and varying conditions between them.


He's received a polite request from his LL which is to his benefit.
An explanation for the request has been provided.
He's not about to research the mortgage market!
He can see that to refuse might jeopdise his relattionship.

So he agrees. Where is the 'complicity'?

Out,_Vile_Jelly

I would avoid mainly for the hassle of having to speak to a utility call centre to terminate the account, then a few months later to reactivate it again. Given how clueless most suppliers are, I wouldn't trust them to be able to initiate this without some sort of inaccurate invoicing mess.

gingercordial

Is the intention that you pay him back for the bills? Or is he offering to take the expense himself so you end up with free utilities?

If he wants to put the bills in his name and then charge you for them I would not be keen as that means I would have no control over the supplier and could not switch for a better deal, so may end up overpaying.

If it means it'll be free then that would be more attractive... But I'd want something in writing that he wasn't going to come after me for the money later.