Renting: Does LL Have a BTL Mortgage or OO?

Benefits_Blagger

hearts wrote: »

What business is it of yours? You rented the house and you pay the rent. Thats the end of your envolvement with the LL. It's none of your business.

If you have a lease your rights are protected. I cannot understand why you want to know more than you should. Unless of course trouble making is how you get your kicks.

what an absolutley stupid post, it has everything to do with the tenant. If i was in property and could be kicked out at any moment because of fraudulent activity by the LL I would want to know!

silvercar

Bobproperty wrote:

If the tenant attends court they would be given time to get out anyway, see previous posts.
The above quote is the only part I have doubts about. I think there is a conflict of interest if there is a tenant on a long tenancy and the lender takes possession. I think it would get to the absolute letter of the law as to whether the lender has to accept the tenancy versus can obtain vacant possession. Can anyone clarify this? Suppose the lender's small print says "no DSS" but the tenant is on HB for instance.
Consider a tenant in a house worth say £300,000 vacant. They have a long tenancy agreement, say 2 years. It would fetch, say £230,000 at auction now. Does the lender go for vacant possession and sell or do they wait 2 years (in a possibly falling market and get say £230,000 in 2 years time) and just collect the rent? Are lenders even allowed to be landlords? (Mutual BSs have some funny old rules)

Even on BTL mortgages, the terms and conditions normally stipulate a maximum AST of 12 months (renewable). Lenders in repossession have a duty to act fairly to the mortagor, this generally means selling for the best price achievable in a reasonably short time. As we see this often means auctions. I doubt that waiting for the end of the tenancy would be acceptable, as arrears build up, even in repossession. I have seen auction details with tenancy end dates quoted only 2-3 months ahead. I doubt lenders want to be landlords, they don't have the infrastructure. If a tenant were repossesseed with an acknowledged tenancy, the lender may take the rent but I don't know how the tenant would deal with repair issues.

silvercar

Benefits_Blagger wrote: »

what an absolutley stupid post, it has everything to do with the tenant. If i was in property and could be kicked out at any moment because of fraudulent activity by the LL I would want to know!

Have you read this thread?

Under current law, the LL activity isn't fraudulent and we have stablished that the tenant would have some notice.

mustrum_ridcully

hearts wrote: »

What business is it of yours? You rented the house and you pay the rent. Thats the end of your envolvement with the LL. It's none of your business.

If you have a lease your rights are protected. I cannot understand why you want to know more than you should. Unless of course trouble making is how you get your kicks.

Well think about it this way a landlord nowadays will often ask for reference and even a credit report (or guarantors) to ensure that they are "safe" so obviously the lease isn't good enough for them. You'd probably need to call for a whaaaambulance for those same landlords if a tenant asked for similar information - even though it is equally justifiable.

Afterall surely it's not unreasonable for a tenant to know what the landlord is like (if they pay announced visits, don't do repairs or don't return deposits or any of the horror stories we see at MSE) and to know what the LL credit history is like if the property is mortgaged (you wouldn't want to find the property you've just signed a 12m AST for might be repossessed).

Quid pro quo - if the landlord asks for references and credit histories then the tenant should have the automatic right to ask the same off the landlord (and vice versa). Why? Because if a landlord doesn't trust the potential tenant even though a contract would be in place why should the tenant trust the landlord.

BobProperty

silvercar wrote: »

Even on BTL mortgages, the terms and conditions normally stipulate a maximum AST of 12 months (renewable). Lenders in repossession have a duty to act fairly to the mortagor, this generally means selling for the best price achievable in a reasonably short time. As we see this often means auctions. I doubt that waiting for the end of the tenancy would be acceptable, as arrears build up, even in repossession. I have seen auction details with tenancy end dates quoted only 2-3 months ahead. I doubt lenders want to be landlords, they don't have the infrastructure. If a tenant were repossesseed with an acknowledged tenancy, the lender may take the rent but I don't know how the tenant would deal with repair issues.

The more I think about this, the more I suspect that the lender has the right to obtain vacant possession but for social conscience/image reasons they don't "push to the limits" what they are legally allowed to do. So in the case I proposed earlier where the tenant had an unusually long tenancy they would remove them. Where there isn't a long tenancy it won't make that much difference to the value they will achieve at auction.