Tenant not paying rent because I don’t have consent to let

Tenant not paying rent because I don’t have consent to let

16:31 PM, 23rd April 2015, About 9 years ago 73

Text Size

I am and a landlord and currently completing eviction orders on a tenant who has not paid his rent in 3 months. A section 21 and section8 have been issued.

The tenants defense for non payment is the following:
I do not have consent to let my property (which I am currently working on with my mortgage company so they are aware) my mortgage payments are up to date.

His other defense is that I do not have the correct insurance for the property again which I have now covered. This point should only be my problem not his.

Does he have any case for non payment of rent because of the above matters?

Thanks
Patrick def


Share This Article


Comments

Rob Crawford

16:34 PM, 24th April 2015, About 9 years ago

Hi Patrick, does your AST detail a landlords obligations to the tenant? If so does it included such issues as having obtained permission from the lease holder and mortgage provider and for an appropriate insurance to be in place? If it does and you have not met these obligations your tenant may well have cause for complaint but even so that does not warrant the non-payment of rent.

20:49 PM, 24th April 2015, About 9 years ago

I am only a rookie landlord but I was repeatedly told by people that consent to let and the tenancy agreement have nothing to do with each other. Basically, the tenant has no grounds to withhold rent, even if you have the wrong type of insurance. The monk has absolutely no grounds. The court won't care if you have consent to let or not. You'll be fine. Keep us updated on how the eviction goes. Make sure you get a money judgement too!

Property Saviour

14:39 PM, 25th April 2015, About 9 years ago

Hi Patrick

Is your tenant a working professional? Or at very least do you have guarantors with assets?

You can inform your tenants that your contractual relationship is between you and your tenant and non payment of rent, is a breach of contract.

You can recover the amount via attachment of earnings.

Good luck and let us know how you get on?

Antony Richards

16:52 PM, 25th April 2015, About 9 years ago

I remember a discussion thread many moons ago when I consistently advised not to let without your lender's consent. Most of the other views suggested to the contrary. It was why I stayed away from this site for several months because the quality of discussion is poor and advice was incorrect. That, and the constant plugging of the 'stack em high, sell em cheap' online agency. Nobody asked why I said what I said. Now you know the reason why. If you do not have the lender's consent you have no right to receive the rent as any professional managing agent will tell you

Fed Up Landlord

16:59 PM, 25th April 2015, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Antony Richards" at "25/04/2015 - 16:52":

Antony - What is the legal basis including statute and case law for your opinion as to the demand for rent being unlawful?

And as for the quality of discussion being poor.You will not find a more helpful knowledgeable bunch of people on here and your comments are not really helpful. And as for the plugging of an online letting agency - I take it you are talking about Letting Supermarket - if you want to pay silly money for the same service to the High Street then its a matter for you. I use them and find them very good.

Antony Richards

17:16 PM, 25th April 2015, About 9 years ago

Gary, I don't have it to hand. Will try to remember to dig it out when I get back to the office.

My comments were not meant to be helpful. Just my opinion. I'm glad you find your agents useful. I assume they asked if you had lender's consent.

Romain Garcin

17:19 PM, 25th April 2015, About 9 years ago

"Consent to let" is purely a contractual term between the lender and the house owner. It has no bearing on the legality of a tenancy.

There is no legal obligation to have any kind of insurance either. It might be a contractual obligation between the lender and the home owner, but that's also irrelevant here.

Fed Up Landlord

17:45 PM, 25th April 2015, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Antony Richards" at "25/04/2015 - 17:16":

Antony I have Buy To Let mortgages. And in such mortgages consent to let is built in. If not - why is the point of having a BTL mortgage? As part of any agents pre-contract paperwork they will ask you in with all the gas certification, electrical certificates etc if you have consent to let. Letting Supermarket are no different when you sign up. They do have founders who have several years experience in Lettings and other businesses so they are not just a flash in the pan internet agency. They have people on the ground as well who are property professionals in their own right.

Industry Observer

18:03 PM, 25th April 2015, About 9 years ago

Only just seen these latest posts but Romain beat me to the punch and is 100% correct. On the consent and insurance issues (I have always been bemused why companies and relocation companies and local authorities/housing associations are so obsessed with having insurance clauses in agreements).

Anyway Antony I have no idea what was in that other thread and what was said against obtaining consent but if you don't have it then you are in breach of your mortgage deed - and that is all.

Rob's point is very pertinent - if you have a "I have all necessary consents" clause in your agreement, but don't have them all, and it leads to problems for the tenant, then you are open to a breach of quiet occupancy claim and would lose.

Jay James

19:08 PM, 25th April 2015, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Gary Nock" at "25/04/2015 - 16:59":

Re comment "If you do not have the lender’s consent you have no right to receive the rent".

Which source is the comment based on?

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now