PDA

View Full Version : No consent to let. Effect on tenancy agreement



essexlandlord
11-02-2010, 12:38 PM
Hello everyone

We all know that if a landlord does not have consent to let then as a tenant you have no right to reside in the property should the mortgage company reposess.

Am I right in thinking that although they (the tenant) have no legal right to reside in the property they still have a legal liabilty to pay rent? Is this correct. I am getting very confused.

Thanks as always

Lawcruncher
11-02-2010, 13:16 PM
We all know that if a landlord does not have consent to let then as a tenant you have no right to reside in the property should the mortgage company reposess.

In fact consent is only required if and to the extent that the mortgage deed says it is required.


Am I right in thinking that although they (the tenant) have no legal right to reside in the property they still have a legal liabilty to pay rent? Is this correct.

No, it is incorrect.

essexlandlord
11-02-2010, 16:18 PM
thankyou for replying. Would you be able to expand your answer a bit?

thanks again

Lawcruncher
11-02-2010, 16:27 PM
thankyou for replying. Would you be able to expand your answer a bit?

thanks again

How long an explanation would you like?

Poppy
11-02-2010, 16:33 PM
Regardless of whether the borrower/landlord has the mortgage lender’s consent to let, the tenancy agreement is valid.

jeffrey
11-02-2010, 16:35 PM
Regardless of whether the borrower/landlord has the mortgage lender’s consent to let, the tenancy agreement is valid.
Yes, it surely binds L but might not bind L's mortgagee (M) if:
a. the mortgage conditions prohibited sub-letting without M's consent; and
b. L did not obtain M's consent.

essexlandlord
11-02-2010, 16:52 PM
Thanks for your replies. It all makes sense now.

Lawcruncher
11-02-2010, 17:10 PM
Yes, it surely binds L but might not bind L's mortgagee (M) if:
a. the mortgage conditions prohibited sub-letting without M's consent; and
b. L did not obtain M's consent.

...and the mortgage existed before the tenancy was created (unless the tenant agreed the mortgage took priority).

jeffrey
11-02-2010, 17:16 PM
...and the mortgage existed before the tenancy was created (unless the tenant agreed the mortgage took priority).
Yes. I agree that L would not have needed consent from M before M ever held a mortgage.

essexlandlord
11-02-2010, 20:54 PM
does it make a difference if the tenancy agreement is through an agent and says the landlord must have permission from the mortgage company to rent the property (and it turns out they do not)?

Poppy
11-02-2010, 21:18 PM
The tenancy agreement is valid.

essexlandlord
11-02-2010, 21:52 PM
Why would it be put in a contract if it makes no difference if the condition is fulfilled or not?

Poppy
11-02-2010, 22:50 PM
Put in the mortgage agreement? I don’t think anyone is saying it makes no difference if the condition is fulfilled. You’ll know whether it makes a difference if the mortgage lender for whatever reason decides to take action against the borrower for a possible breach of mortgage conditions or they may not or they may add a fee to the mortgage or they may increase the interest rate or a combination.

essexlandlord
11-02-2010, 23:39 PM
no. it is in my tenancy agreement. it states clearly that the landlord must have permission from the mortgage company to rent the property to me.

has the landlord breached the tenancy by not having permission? if not then why bother having the term in the tenancy. Am I free to hammer nails in the wall, redecorate, sublet, smash the place into little bits with a hammer?

Surely you can see my frustration. I am currently paying all my rent on time and living in a property that smells of sh*t (sorry but drains have collapsed), has no ceiling in the front room and a saniflow system that is merrily pumping waste water out. If its pumped all the waste out the water that is left certainly does not smell to nice.

The delay in repairs is caused by the landlord not having permission to rent the property out and as a result only having owner occupier buildings insurance. The buildings insurance company have twigged straight away that the landlord is renting the property out. I feel for him slightly. He is a buy to let landlord who bought the place, paid builders to renovate but never checked the work. We are moving out soon and he has agreed to let us leave early so this sorry chapter in my life is nearly over.

However the consent to let issues surrounding tenancies also fascinates me as I am a benefits officer and am increasingly dealing with families who are being evicted with no notice as the landlord has defaulted on the mortgage and has not notified the tenants that the property is being repossessed and they will be evicted with no notice. It really is no notice. I was talking to a bailiff friend the other day who told me they are seeing this situation a lot and it is a case of giving the occupiers time to collect a few essentials then allowing them back to arrange to have their belongings put into storage.

Its a very serious issue that goes way beyond my current predicament and one that I would really appreciate your collective input on.

Lawcruncher
12-02-2010, 00:10 AM
I am a benefits officer and am increasingly dealing with families who are being evicted with no notice as the landlord has defaulted on the mortgage and has not notified the tenants that the property is being repossessed and they will be evicted with no notice. It really is no notice. I was talking to a bailiff friend the other day who told me they are seeing this situation a lot and it is a case of giving the occupiers time to collect a few essentials then allowing them back to arrange to have their belongings put into storage.

If this is happening it is plain wrong.

Under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) the lender (mortgagee) which has issued a claim for possession of a property must serve a notice addressed to “the occupiers” advising that proceedings have been commenced. Since 6 April 2009 lenders have had to send this notice out within five days of receiving notification of the hearing date from the court – the aim of this change was to give occupiers more notice of the proceedings.

Quoted from this web page: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsp-05019.pdf which also has information on what a tenant can do and the points raised in this thread.

Preston
12-02-2010, 09:34 AM
no. it is in my tenancy agreement. it states clearly that the landlord must have permission from the mortgage company to rent the property to me.

has the landlord breached the tenancy by not having permission? if not then why bother having the term in the tenancy. Am I free to hammer nails in the wall, redecorate, sublet, smash the place into little bits with a hammer?



I think the distinction you need to draw is between the obligation and the remedy.

The contract says he should have told his lender, so he should have done. The real question is, what is your remedy for this breach - in other words, what can you do about it. Others more knowledgeable in this area will no doubt be able to give you more detail on this one. In theory you could apply for a court order compelling him to do so. And if you have suffered a loss as a result of his failure, you could sue him.

If you hammer things into the wall and cause damage beyond fair wear and tear, you landlord could likewise ask (or, through the courts, compel) you to put it right or sue you for damages.

jeffrey
12-02-2010, 10:35 AM
no. it is in my tenancy agreement. it states clearly that the landlord must have permission from the mortgage company to rent the property to me.
But what is the status of the clause? Is it a n obligation on L enforceable by T?