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

What an interesting post stream! I have been reading this for a couple of years, contributing occasionally; I am not always in agreement with all advice, I think there have been comments about my contributions, but never would I say that the level of advice given is poor. It is a pity that an attitude of “I told you so” is spoiling the sound advice of always, always discuss with your mortgage provider, if you want to let a mortgaged property, which by the way, I always advise. I cannot see why failure to do something at the right time should invalidate either the tenancy or the notice – but a Court will decide either way.

I’m just putting my shorts on to go back to school, where I will meet up with Anthony so we can play conkers lol! It’s all bonkers to me!

I think this situation is quite straightforward.

Owner has a contract with mortgage company that explicitly contains clauses saying he can’t part with it in any way without their consent (all resi mortgages do).

He has created a tenancy so he’s in breach and they therefore could take action against him, including calling in the loan or repossession. In reality, he has now contacted them and begun the process to agree consent to let (and to pay any fees or increased interest due as a result) so action, while still possible, seems unlikely.

The tenancy is valid and rent is due.

The lender is almost certainly not bound by the tenancy though and so their position in terms of applying to the court for possession (if they reposess) is stronger than it would be had they consented to the tenancy (where the lender would become the landlord in the event of repossession from the owner).

Lender would still have to go through either Section 8 or Section 21 process for possession. Judge would not add any weight to the lack of consent, and in my experience of most Judges in possession cases would side with the tenant. In fact if the lender is seeking possession then they are normally even more lenient with the tenants, giving them more time than they should.

If the landlord has not consent to let then the lender does not have to follow s.8 or s.21 to evict the tenant: The court order for repossession allows the lender to evict anyone at the property.

However, they should notify the occupiers in advance in order for them to let themselves know to court and request a delay of up to 2 months

Reply to the comment left by “Romain Garcin” at “13/05/2015 – 10:52“:

Exactly, Romain. So the gist of this thread is that the lack of consent to let reduces the tenant’s security of tenure in the even of the lender taking action but has no effect whatsoever on his need to pay the rent.

Reply to the comment left by “Renovate To let” at “13/05/2015 – 14:11

Romain I defer to your greater knowledge on this but as a matter of interest which Act would the lender use to get possession if not S.21 or S.8?

Reply to the comment left by “Gary Nock” at “13/05/2015 – 16:29“:

This is the standard procedure by which a lender repossesses a property. I must say I do not know exactly which statutes govern that (Law of Property Act?).

Hi All Thank you very much for your assistance. I will post an update after the court case.
Just for knowledge I am going to create another post regarding my tenant now trying lodge a personal injury claim for falling down the stairs( It just gets better)

Regards,

Patrick