Our landlords not supposed to be renting his house out

Our landlords not supposed to be renting his house out

Author
Discussion

hairykrishna

Original Poster:

13,158 posts

202 months

Thursday 12th May 2016
quotequote all
Got home yesterday to discover a letter from Woolwich addressed to the 'Occupier'. Informed us that our landlord is breaching his terms and conditions of mortgage, they don't recognise our right to occupy and they reserve the right to take action.

What normally happens next? What's the time line? I'm guessing the normal action is for them to stick him on an inflated buy to let rate rather than immediately demanding full repayment.

We're not super stressed, as we've had an offer accepted on a house and are just waiting for searches etc. We had planned to cross over the tenancy with our new place for a month or two but it's not the end of the world if we can't. Where do we stand in terms of rental contracts and deposits? We rent through an agent and our deposit's in a scheme.

shandyboy

472 posts

153 months

Thursday 12th May 2016
quotequote all
I would presume even if he needed you out in order to continue his current mortgage by law he'd need to give you a certain amount of notice (if you're on a rolling month-by-month after an AST runs out it would be a month).

Should work out for you if the house purchase goes smoothly. Fingers crossed!

papercup

2,490 posts

218 months

Thursday 12th May 2016
quotequote all
why did this get moved? Its a legal question.

ATG

20,480 posts

271 months

Thursday 12th May 2016
quotequote all
They don't recognise your right to occupancy? Did they actually say that??? Your landlord may have breached the terms of his mortgage, but how on earth do they conclude that that has any effect on the tenancy agreement he signed with you?

V8mate

45,899 posts

188 months

Thursday 12th May 2016
quotequote all
ATG said:
They don't recognise your right to occupancy? Did they actually say that??? Your landlord may have breached the terms of his mortgage, but how on earth do they conclude that that has any effect on the tenancy agreement he signed with you?
Because the tenancy may have been void at inception if the 'landlord' wasn't in a legal position to issue one?

hairykrishna

Original Poster:

13,158 posts

202 months

Thursday 12th May 2016
quotequote all
ATG said:
They don't recognise your right to occupancy? Did they actually say that??? Your landlord may have breached the terms of his mortgage, but how on earth do they conclude that that has any effect on the tenancy agreement he signed with you?
As I understand it, because the mortgage he has doesn't allow letting the lender isn't bound by the tenancy agreement he has with us. So they could, in theory, repossess the house and chuck us out with very little notice. I was just wondering if anyone knew how likely this is and how long it would take.

I'm mostly pissed off with the letting agency. Super keen on poking around our stuff every few months but not so hot on checking their clients are legally allowed to let properties.

essayer

9,008 posts

193 months

Thursday 12th May 2016
quotequote all
They may not recognise your tenancy but a court certainly will - you will be able to delay things by a couple of months if they want to repossess. Check with CAB

ATG

20,480 posts

271 months

Thursday 12th May 2016
quotequote all
hairykrishna said:
ATG said:
They don't recognise your right to occupancy? Did they actually say that??? Your landlord may have breached the terms of his mortgage, but how on earth do they conclude that that has any effect on the tenancy agreement he signed with you?
As I understand it, because the mortgage he has doesn't allow letting the lender isn't bound by the tenancy agreement he has with us. So they could, in theory, repossess the house and chuck us out with very little notice. I was just wondering if anyone knew how likely this is and how long it would take.

I'm mostly pissed off with the letting agency. Super keen on poking around our stuff every few months but not so hot on checking their clients are legally allowed to let properties.
I'd be surprised if the reason for repossession had any effect on the protection given to an existing tenant. I'm not a lawyer, but making a loan and a tenancy agreement contingent would seem madness. And if they are, why isn't it usual for prospective tenants to require disclosure of any charges on a property before entering into the tenancy agreement?

superlightr

12,842 posts

262 months

Thursday 12th May 2016
quotequote all
hairykrishna said:
As I understand it, because the mortgage he has doesn't allow letting the lender isn't bound by the tenancy agreement he has with us. So they could, in theory, repossess the house and chuck us out with very little notice. I was just wondering if anyone knew how likely this is and how long it would take.

I'm mostly pissed off with the letting agency. Super keen on poking around our stuff every few months but not so hot on checking their clients are legally allowed to let properties.
FFS lets blame the agents. How about blame the owner ? he is at fault.

The agents terms and conditions will almost certainly get the owner to confirm that they have got permission to let. It will be the owner who has failed in getting this permission.

As other posters have said the Mortgage co will want the owner to pay a fee and or increase the rate they pay. No big shakes. If they want to recover the property then they will issues a s8 notice which generally will require 2 weeks to 2 months notice and a court to agree. Nothing quick will happen and I would guess nothing will happen to affect you. If it does they will write to you.




dazwalsh

6,095 posts

140 months

Thursday 12th May 2016
quotequote all
essayer said:
They may not recognise your tenancy but a court certainly will - you will be able to delay things by a couple of months if they want to repossess. Check with CAB
^this, dont be frightened by letters through the door you cant just be hoofed out wothout going through the correct peoceedures, which takes a good few months, longer if you dig your heels in.

Yoir deposit is safe too.

hairykrishna

Original Poster:

13,158 posts

202 months

Thursday 12th May 2016
quotequote all
superlightr said:
FFS lets blame the agents. How about blame the owner ? he is at fault.

The agents terms and conditions will almost certainly get the owner to confirm that they have got permission to let. It will be the owner who has failed in getting this permission.

As other posters have said the Mortgage co will want the owner to pay a fee and or increase the rate they pay. No big shakes. If they want to recover the property then they will issues a s8 notice which generally will require 2 weeks to 2 months notice and a court to agree. Nothing quick will happen and I would guess nothing will happen to affect you. If it does they will write to you.
When we previously let out a house we owned the agent we used wanted proof that we had the right to let it rather than taking our word for it. I had assumed this was standard procedure.

Thanks for the information on times.

snorky782

1,115 posts

98 months

Thursday 12th May 2016
quotequote all
ATG said:
I'd be surprised if the reason for repossession had any effect on the protection given to an existing tenant. I'm not a lawyer, but making a loan and a tenancy agreement contingent would seem madness. And if they are, why isn't it usual for prospective tenants to require disclosure of any charges on a property before entering into the tenancy agreement?
In the last house that I let, I had to advise the new tenants if there was a mortgage on the property. Any more details were optional but good practice to disclose the basics IMO. Cue lots of people screaming identity theft etc.

sidekickdmr

5,065 posts

205 months

Thursday 12th May 2016
quotequote all
We had this on a previous place we rented in Cardiff, but with the added complications/stress of the property being re-possesed too.

From the first letter, it was months before we started to get any hassle, so If you've got somewhere in the pipeline I wouldnt worry too much.

At worst case senario he serves you notice, they cant just turn up and turf you out there and then.

Pheo

3,324 posts

201 months

Thursday 12th May 2016
quotequote all
superlightr said:
FFS lets blame the agents. How about blame the owner ? he is at fault.

The agents terms and conditions will almost certainly get the owner to confirm that they have got permission to let. It will be the owner who has failed in getting this permission.

As other posters have said the Mortgage co will want the owner to pay a fee and or increase the rate they pay. No big shakes. If they want to recover the property then they will issues a s8 notice which generally will require 2 weeks to 2 months notice and a court to agree. Nothing quick will happen and I would guess nothing will happen to affect you. If it does they will write to you.
Although indeed the landlord is ultimately responsible, I suspect the tenant only had dealings with the agent. I don't think it's unreasonable for the tenant to expect the agency to have done their due diligence properly - they are after all the landlords agent, and by making representations that the prospect is available to let they should be able to back that up. Not doing so I would imagine leaves both parties open to consequential loss.

And yes it's rediculous the bank can chuck you out but technically I believe that's the law. The contract is void. That having been said if you are moving in a couple of months anyway I would doubt that they'll move fast enough to cause you a problem.



ATG

20,480 posts

271 months

Thursday 12th May 2016
quotequote all
I'd hazard a guess that the Woolwich throw in this meaningless "we don't recognise" guff in the hope that it'll scare the tenant and encourage them to go shout at the landlord, thus putting more pressure on the landlord to address the problem with the mortgage more quickly. Cynical, causes unnecessary stress, but probably works.

TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

125 months

Thursday 12th May 2016
quotequote all
You cannot be just kicked out without a court granting possession - and you'll have plenty of warning of that. You will be able to have at least two months notice - http://www.irwinmitchell.com/about-us/newsletters/...

But the short answer is that you need to start looking for somewhere to move to.

sjg

7,444 posts

264 months

Thursday 12th May 2016
quotequote all
Have been in a similar position several years ago, the house I was renting was sold with us in situ and new AST signed with the new landlord. About 18 months later we get a "to the Occupier" letter - solicitor on behalf of lender were starting possession proceedings. It included the details of the county court hearing so I went along as you are allowed to as a member of the public (the landlord definitely wasn't expecting that) - turned out he'd got a non-BTL mortgage, claimed he was living there with no permission to let, and after the first couple of months stopped making payments. He'd agreed a plan to repay arrears so the lender got a suspended possession order. We got out of there a couple of months later, next seen on rightmove a few months after that with the telltale tape around the sink and boiler.

I clarified the legal position at the time and yes, if the landlord doesn't have permission to let and they repossessed you wouldn't have any right to stay there. Your AST is with the landlord and if he doesn't have the house any more, the lender doesn't have to honour it. Their right to repossess trumps your right to live there. That said, anecdotally the lender would be OK with continuing to receive rent while you find somewhere else to live. If you chose to make things difficult it could take months to legally force you out.

In your position though it sounds like they're covering themselves legally as a "just in case" it comes to that. Perhaps your landlord was found out and is now being difficult about the need to move to a BTL mortgage, so they're getting the legal paperwork in place. Worth talking to your landlord (via letting agent if necessary) even though they'll probably tell you everything is fine.

If you're planning to leave in a couple of months then it'll take at least that long for anything to happen. Happily with the deposit schemes now you don't have to worry too much about getting that back either, the onus is on the landlord to apply deductions so even if they go quiet you'll get it back after a while regardless.

And yes, most letting agents are useless about checking that landlords have the right to let. Many bury it in their standard T&Cs and never bother checking - it's one of the standard things I ask when renting now.

sjg

7,444 posts

264 months

Thursday 12th May 2016
quotequote all
TooMany2cvs said:
You cannot be just kicked out without a court granting possession - and you'll have plenty of warning of that. You will be able to have at least two months notice - http://www.irwinmitchell.com/about-us/newsletters/...

But the short answer is that you need to start looking for somewhere to move to.
Interesting - my case was prior to the Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010, good to see this is clearer and much better for the tenant now.

Black_S3

2,667 posts

187 months

Thursday 12th May 2016
quotequote all
superlightr said:
FFS lets blame the agents. How about blame the owner ? he is at fault.

The agents terms and conditions will almost certainly get the owner to confirm that they have got permission to let. It will be the owner who has failed in getting this permission.

As other posters have said the Mortgage co will want the owner to pay a fee and or increase the rate they pay. No big shakes. If they want to recover the property then they will issues a s8 notice which generally will require 2 weeks to 2 months notice and a court to agree. Nothing quick will happen and I would guess nothing will happen to affect you. If it does they will write to you.
If the agents were doing their job properly they would have confirmed it. Lettings agents are more than happy to charge tenants an extortionate amount for credit checks. They should vet the landlords in the same way.

ATG

20,480 posts

271 months

Thursday 12th May 2016
quotequote all
Black_S3 said:
If the agents were doing their job properly they would have confirmed it. Lettings agents are more than happy to charge tenants an extortionate amount for credit checks. They should vet the landlords in the same way.
They are working for the landlord. They aren't working for the tenant.