Strange request by a landlord?

[Templehead]

I dont think the landlord is doing anything dodgy to the tenant, hes doing a dodgy on the mortgage as the mortgage terms will most likely say that he cant rent out the place (as buy to let mortgages are usually a percent more expensive)

 

If i were the tenant, I would say you know this and for a tenner I ll pretend to be the landlords bf,son whatever in front of the surveyor and wont suddenly shout "I ll pay you the rent next week mate!"

 

Landlord has no right of access in this case as there are no repairs that need doing. Plus asking the tenant to vacate the place so he can diddle the banks is just cheeky.

[MrShed]

It can affect the tenant directly(in the fact that they could find themselves evicted if the landlord does not have permission to rent out by his lender) and indirectly(landlords who act in this way are less likely to keep to other obligations also).

[GlasweJen]

I have a question, if you had good reason to believe that your landlord was lying to get credit then wouldn't you be obliged to tell someone?

[MrShed]

I'm not aware of any such law....but doesnt mean there isnt one!

[GlasweJen]

See I'm not sure either but technically this guy was present when the landlord lied to obtain credit - doesn't that make him a witness to fraud? Are we legally obliged to report crimes like this? If the landlord gets the mortgage and then finds out about the tenant could the mortgage lender then incriminate the tenant because he had good reason to think that the house he was living in was covered by a mortgage that did not allow for buy to let, after all the tenant was present during the survey and didn't correct the landlord when he said they were just mates?

 

Genuine questions by the way, I'm quite interested in this.

[onlynameleft]

Technically it probably makes him an accessory to a mortgage fraud, yes. Whether or not he knew what was going on at the time would be the determining factor - I'm not sure he did.

[GlasweJen]

Well he knew that the guy was a surveyor for a mortgage company and he also knew that he is not just a mate of the landlord. He figured it was dodgy enough to tell someone else and that someone else also smelled a rat and posted here, sounds like he knows fine well what's going on.

[alfwithhair]

Well it appears that the CAG members comments that this landlord was after a cheap re-morgage without the creditor knowing the property is rented maybe true, also there maybe a bit of tax dodging going on too.

 

I have just found out off my son that all the time he as been renting from him, the landlords bank statements are sent to the rented property. He also requires the rent to be delivered personally to his other residence in cash on the 1st of every month.

 

I have not mentioned to him that he maybe an accessory to morgage fraud as he is recovering from a breakdown, so can do without any further troubles. It is rather worrying to me though that he could be accountable for his actions by agreeing to back the landlord on his lies.

 

He has no idea with anything legal and am 100% sure he never intended to decive anyone, he is just gullable and was genuinly worried that he might have no where to live after the visit, should the landlord have changed the locks.

 

This didn't happen and he has not seen or heard from the landlord since. So I think it is better to keep what I have learnt from this forum to myself for the time being, until he is fully recovered from his illness.

 

But keep your views coming as I am taking it all on board and will use this knowledge should the landlord try anything underhanded in the future.

 

Thanks to everyone that gave an opinion, it was much appreciated.

 

Alf

[MrShed]

I have not mentioned to him that he maybe an accessory to morgage fraud as he is recovering from a breakdown, so can do without any further troubles. It is rather worrying to me though that he could be accountable for his actions by agreeing to back the landlord on his lies.

 

Should be noted that although we are obviously discussing the theoretical position above, I would consider it HIGHLY unlikely that this would ever be acted upon, so I dont think he has too much to worry about in this situation.

[onlynameleft]

Should be noted that although we are obviously discussing the theoretical position above, I would consider it HIGHLY unlikely that this would ever be acted upon, so I dont think he has too much to worry about in this situation.

 

No, I'd agree with that - knowledge after the event is probably only relevant from a moral point of view. There is no general obligation in this country to actually report a fraud after the event as far as I know; therre are exceptions top that but I'm not sure any could be relevant here.

 

To be guilty of an offence he would, I'm sure, have had to have some kind of subjective knowledge or at least a strong suspicion BEFORE the survey took place.

[Oh Boy!]

don't forget the landlord has to register with the local council or face £20,000 fine.

 

My friend (landlord) rents but the mortgage company have no idea, this is why your son has been asked to leave on arrival of surveyor.

 

IF LANDLORD MESS'S ABOUT THREATEN HIM WITH TELLING LOCAL COUNCIL, AND WHOEVER WANTS TO LISTEN.

[Joa]

la la la double post, sorry

[Joa]

don't forget the landlord has to register with the local council or face £20,000 fine.

 

 

eh? Are you talking about HMO, Boy? As Far As I know only licenceable HMOs have to register, others can contact LA to be listed but there is no obligation.

Unless I a talking out of my derrière.

[Nightmare4banks]

Hi all!

 

In my view:

 

1.The tenant does not have to give the landlord access in this particular case.However,the tenant/landlord relationship should be mellow and flexible.

 

2.How does anyone know that this particular landlord is twisting banks?What actual concrete evidence is there?

 

3.I have received letters of mine at my rented out properties and ask my tenants to put them aside for me.Also,all my mortgages are proper buy to let mortgages.Does the fact that I receive my letters to my other properties make me a crook?

By the way,I also pay my taxes and all other liabilities.

 

4.In some cases,buy to let mortgages can be competitive and cheaper than mainstream mortgages.

 

5.Licences only apply to HMOs - Houses in Multiple Occupation.Buildings -three storeys and higher.

 

6.If the landlord changed the locks he could be prosecuted for illegal eviction.This is normally carried out by the local authority.The police do not normally get involved apart from in the case of breach of the peace i.e. violence etc.The evicted tenant would qualify for damages and in some cases it could also be high amount depending on the circumstances of the case.

 

7.Although a tenancy in a property that has a restriction in letting the property out is void in a sense from a legal aspect.However,in practice a lender would not evict the tenant and would simply just make the mortgage payer pay a higher interest rate - in the worse case scenario or possibly change the mortgage product to a buy to let product after the payment of a fee.The only case where any eviction could happen and that is if the landlord fell behind with the mortgage repayments and had mortgage arrears leading to a reposession.

 

8.In order for a crime to be established there are 2 elements - the actions and the intent.In the case of the poster's son these would not apply.So I think you should chill out and see that he concentrates on recovering from his breakdown rather than interfering in his landlord's affairs.As long as his landlord treats him well that is all that should matter.

If his landlord was selling drugs or something like that and backed up with proper concrete evidence this would a total different scenario all together and yes involve the police etc and rightly so.

 

IN BRIEF...

 

Folks be very careful what you do because it could all backfire in your faces and it would be too late to do anything about it.

[Oh Boy!]

eh? Are you talking about HMO, Boy? As Far As I know only licenceable HMOs have to register, others can contact LA to be listed but there is no obligation.

Unless I a talking out of my derrière.

 

No!.. your quite right... I just assumed it fell into the HMO catergory.

 

-------------------------------------------------

10 Years Finance Fraud Investigator

 

5 Year High Court Sheriffs

 

2 Years Tip Staff Royal Courts

 

Currently : HMCS Enforcement Officer

[GlasweJen]

Nightmare I think it may be you who needs the chill pill. You'll notice that I asked the questions about the fraud thing out of interest, i.e if i thought my landlord was commiting mortgage fraud would I have to tell someone. The situation is resolved as far as the OP goes, landlord has visited and nothing bad happened, the rest of the thread is mostly a what if... scenario as I read it.

[MrShed]

N4B, I have to agree with Jen. No-one is attempting to scaremonger here, and it has been stated on at least two occasions that should such a law exist, the chances of anything happening to the OPs son is extremely slim. It is not not chilled to take a conversation in the public forum one step further to speak about theoretical situations that could arise.

 

Also, as a point of note, you certainly can get evicted should the landlord be letting without the permission of the lender. I personally know of at least 2 cases in the last 12 months where exactly this has happened. Banks are not "obliged" to juts increase the interest rate.

[Nightmare4banks]

Jenschnifer,in reply your last post:

 

1.My response was aimed at the main poster and not you.

 

2.Secondly,there nothing worse than trying to create a mountain out of a molehill.Remember if you want to get someone criminally prosecuted there MUST be adequate evidence and everyone is classed as innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law.

 

3.What really concerns me here is that people do not look beyond their noses.

 

4.Are you trying to tell me that mainstream mortgage applicants do not commit fraud?Please get real!

 

5.I am chilled but anyone that does anything without proper thinking is amongst things daft and foolish.

 

 

Also,this final comment is for Jenschnifer:

 

I have no intention in entrying a flaming match with you on this forum.So if you desire to go down this route you will seriously fail.

 

Mods,my sincere apologies.

 

I have had my say and that is the end of this matter as far as I am concerned.

[Nightmare4banks]

Mr.Shed,

 

Please specify the exact meat and bones of these cases regarding mortgage companies and tenant evictions.

 

Regarding my posts,you are fully entitled to your opinions.

[MrShed]

I am like you N4B, and dont want to have an argument, especially with a member whose opinions generally speaking I highly respect - I just feel that the theoretical discussion here is OK. However, I will leave it at that

 

Unfortunately, I cannot discuss the details of the cases in question, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one

[Nightmare4banks]

Mr.Shed,

 

I have very high respect for you too.

 

It is a pity you can't because maybe I would have convinced you that I am right.However,it could be visa versa!lol!

 

At the end of the day, like you say at times,it is good to agree to disagree.If that makes any sense!ha!ha!

[GlasweJen]

whoa NB, I'm not looking for a flaming match, was just pointing out that the mortgage questions came after the OPs position had been resolved, the landlord had been and it's all sorted.

 

I wouldn't know the first thing about mortgage fraud I'm afraid, that's why I asked. I'm yet to get on the property ladder and it shouldn't happen for a while as no one likes lending houses worth of money to students.

[Ed999]

It would be prudent for the tenant to behave with extreme caution, if he suspects mortgage fraud.

 

If the mortgage lender repossesses the property, either because of the fraud or for any other reason, an unlawful letting - i.e. one in breach of the terms of the mortgage agreement - will not be binding on the lender.

 

The tenant will be liable to eviction by the mortgagee in possession.

[Ed999]

I think Mr Shed and Ed you're both part right.

An implied right of quiet enjoyment is subject to modification by any express clause to the contrary in the tenancy agreement. So the contractual clause means the tenant is contractually obliged to give access on the prescribed notice.

The issue arises if he refuses to do so. The landlord cannot simply break in because of the protection from eviction act. He would need a court order but if would effectively be an injunction requiring the tenant to give access in accordance with the agreement rather than necessarily an order for possession. landlords often have to go down this route if the tenant refuses access to carry out gas safety tests for example.

 

I missed this post originally, so my reply is probably academic now.

 

The right of quiet enjoyment is not being infringed. The question doesn't even arise. There is nothing in the circumstances of this case to indicate the landlord is trying to evict the tenant.

 

Quiet enjoyment is simply an old-fashioned way of saying that the tenant is entitled to enjoy possession of the premises. The landlord is just promising not to interfere with the tenant's right to possession (i.e. occupation) of the premises.

 

What is relevent is that the landlord is invariably entitled to access, in order to inspect the premises, under an express term in the tenancy agreement.

 

As you have pointed out, if (in breach of contract) the tenant refuses access then the landlord can obtain an injunction in court to compel the tenant to comply with the express term of the contract for access.

 

If there is no such express term in the tenancy agreement, section 16 of the Housing Act 1988 implies a term into the tenancy agreement that the tenant shall give the landlord access to the property, for carrying out the landlord's repairing obligations under that Act.

[onlynameleft]

Yes, I'm aware what the right of quiet enjoyment is thanks Ed. However, you seem to be saying that it is not an issue because there is no eviction. That is not right. The tenant's IMPLIED (and absolute) right of quiet enjoyment is infringed by the landlord's request for access as it is a right to enjoy the property free from interruption by the landlord. However, as I mentioned, the implied right of quiet is enjoyment is capable of modification by the contract - hence a request by the landlord to do what the contract allows him to do is not a breach.

You seem to have a tendency to argue for the sake of it, Ed. Are you a law student by any chance?