No consent to let. Effect on tenancy agreement

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • No consent to let. Effect on tenancy agreement

    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

  • #2
    Originally posted by essexlandlord View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by essexlandlord View Post
    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      thankyou for replying. Would you be able to expand your answer a bit?

      thanks again

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by essexlandlord View Post
        thankyou for replying. Would you be able to expand your answer a bit?

        thanks again
        How long an explanation would you like?

        Comment


        • #5
          Regardless of whether the borrower/landlord has the mortgage lender’s consent to let, the tenancy agreement is valid.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Poppy View Post
            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.
            JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
            1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
            2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
            3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
            4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

            Comment


            • #7
              Thanks for your replies. It all makes sense now.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by jeffrey View Post
                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).

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
                  ...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.
                  JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
                  1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
                  2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
                  3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
                  4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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)?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The tenancy agreement is valid.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Why would it be put in a contract if it makes no difference if the condition is fulfilled or not?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by essexlandlord View Post
                              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...snsp-05019.pdf which also has information on what a tenant can do and the points raised in this thread.

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X