Our landlords not supposed to be renting his house out

[Du1point8]

snorky782 said:

Du1point8 said:

Strange... you don't need a buy to let to rent out a property, I got one with just asking and Im on the same mortgage as before, I explained my situation (secondment out of the country) and that as the mortgage stipulates the property must not be unoccupied for more than XX days, I have to have a tenant, so they agreed and gave me a right to let letter.

Does your mortgage really state that, or is it your home insurance that does? Genuinely interested.

Same company for me, but its my mortgage that stated it as my insurance was already cancelled...

Buildings insurance don't care, contents insurance only cares about my stuff... mortgage cares about the state of the property (their property until I have paid it off) so want someone in there.

[snorky782]

Du1point8 said:

snorky782 said:

Du1point8 said:

Strange... you don't need a buy to let to rent out a property, I got one with just asking and Im on the same mortgage as before, I explained my situation (secondment out of the country) and that as the mortgage stipulates the property must not be unoccupied for more than XX days, I have to have a tenant, so they agreed and gave me a right to let letter.

Does your mortgage really state that, or is it your home insurance that does? Genuinely interested.

Same company for me, but its my mortgage that stated it as my insurance was already cancelled...

Buildings insurance don't care, contents insurance only cares about my stuff... mortgage cares about the state of the property (their property until I have paid it off) so want someone in there.

It's a common statement in home insurance contracts, especially buildings due to damage that can be caused whilst vacant, so they really care.

I've never heard of it in a mortgage offer though, not that I'm overly experienced on that score. Wouldn't your solicitor have to make you aware of that, as they go through leases and covenants with a fine tooth comb, so would assume the same in mortgage offers.

[Du1point8]

snorky782 said:

Du1point8 said:

snorky782 said:

Du1point8 said:

Strange... you don't need a buy to let to rent out a property, I got one with just asking and Im on the same mortgage as before, I explained my situation (secondment out of the country) and that as the mortgage stipulates the property must not be unoccupied for more than XX days, I have to have a tenant, so they agreed and gave me a right to let letter.

Does your mortgage really state that, or is it your home insurance that does? Genuinely interested.

Same company for me, but its my mortgage that stated it as my insurance was already cancelled...

Buildings insurance don't care, contents insurance only cares about my stuff... mortgage cares about the state of the property (their property until I have paid it off) so want someone in there.

It's a common statement in home insurance contracts, especially buildings due to damage that can be caused whilst vacant, so they really care.

I've never heard of it in a mortgage offer though, not that I'm overly experienced on that score. Wouldn't your solicitor have to make you aware of that, as they go through leases and covenants with a fine tooth comb, so would assume the same in mortgage offers.

Not sure really Mine was a remortgage.

I have no contact with the buildings insurance as its a flat in London, so that is dealt with by the management company, they have never said that the property can't be vacant.

I have to ask for the mortgage company consent and with regards to the contents insurance, they couldn't care less as there was no property in there, I had to have a LL insurance to cover tenant damage, but again it was the mortgage people that were more concerned that I didnt just sod off leaving it empty (building work is a caveat), but still keep paying it, kind of forcing my hand into renting it.

Strange really.

[snorky782]

Du1point8 said:

Not sure really Mine was a remortgage.

I have no contact with the buildings insurance as its a flat in London, so that is dealt with by the management company, they have never said that the property can't be vacant.

I have to ask for the mortgage company consent and with regards to the contents insurance, they couldn't care less as there was no property in there, I had to have a LL insurance to cover tenant damage, but again it was the mortgage people that were more concerned that I didnt just sod off leaving it empty (building work is a caveat), but still keep paying it, kind of forcing my hand into renting it.

Strange really.

I'm just trying to understand this, so bear with me. Fine that you've got cover via a block policy on your flat for buildings, that takes away the issue over vacancy on that. I still haven't seen a clause requiring it to be occupied on a mortgage offer though, but my experience is pretty old now.

No problem with asking for consent to let though, that makes complete sense.