PDA

View Full Version : Bank's permission to let the property



Daisy_Elle8
14-03-2009, 09:13 AM
Hello

I've read that a landlord needs the mortgaging bank's permission to rent out the property. I tried to find out from the letting agent, who said 'everything was sorted'.

How do I find out which bank the landlord has his mortgage with please?

Thanks.

Daise

PaulF
14-03-2009, 09:17 AM
I presume you're the tenant. The only way you're likely to find the information is from the Land Registry, but it might only tell you that the property is mortgaged. Some do however specify the lender. Why do you want to know?

Daisy_Elle8
14-03-2009, 09:32 AM
I presume you're the tenant. The only way you're likely to find the information is from the Land Registry, but it might only tell you that the property is mortgaged. Some do however specify the lender. Why do you want to know?

I read that if the landlord didn't tell the bank he was renting out the property, the bank could repossess.

Is that incorrect?

Also I would like to make sure that everything is above board and there will be no repercussions on us due to the landlord's errors/omissions etc.

PaulF
14-03-2009, 09:39 AM
You're right about that. If the L fails to maintain mortgage repayments then the lender can indeed repossess but you are likely to get to know about it if that's the case. It's unlikely you are entitled to the information of the lender's identity under Data Protection regs.

If the lender has not been advised of the letting of the premises the L is in breach of his mortgage deed but it's unlikely the lender will do anything if repayments are maintained.

Paragon
14-03-2009, 11:34 AM
If the LL is a good customer, the lender won't do anything - it will be strickly a business decision.

mind the gap
14-03-2009, 11:41 AM
It may also invalidate the LL's buildings insurance; if the house went up in flames or was flooded and all T's property destroyed, or (heaven forbid) people were killed or injured, then insurance company would not pay out.

Ruth Less
14-03-2009, 19:32 PM
You're right about that. If the L fails to maintain mortgage repayments then the lender can indeed repossess but you are likely to get to know about it if that's the case.


Don't think T is likely to be notified as a new tenant does not know how many mortgage payments were missed before the tenancy started. I've read of several cases where T1 moves due to finding out L is falling behind with mortgage payments and then the property is let again to T2 who has no idea what's gone on. Even then T1 often only finds out by accident, they're not notified.

A recent confirmation of consent to let means at least a new tenant knows things are pretty OK at the start.

An extreme example, Agents letting property subject to a re-possession order:
http://landlordlaw.blogspot.com/2008/05/agents-letting-property-subject-to-re.html

Paragon
14-03-2009, 22:14 PM
It may also invalidate the LL's buildings insurance; if the house went up in flames or was flooded and all T's property destroyed, or (heaven forbid) people were killed or injured, then insurance company would not pay out.

Doesn't seem to bother my insurance company - as long as I took out the right landlord's insurance policy. I actually asked them and they stated substantially that it has no bearing. It is a commercial decision between you and your lender - nothing to do with us. But, maybe it is an individual insurance company thingy.

mind the gap
14-03-2009, 22:41 PM
Doesn't seem to bother my insurance company - as long as I took out the right landlord's insurance policy. I actually asked them and they stated substantially that it has no bearing. It is a commercial decision between you and your lender - nothing to do with us. But, maybe it is an individual insurance company thingy.

Perhaps; but in a situation where the LL has not sought permission from his lender to let out the property, I think insurers may use the lender's ignorance to 'wriggle' out of settling a claim.

Does anyone else have direct experience of this?