J4L Posted August 31, 2007 Report Share Posted August 31, 2007 Does EVERY mortgage company put a clause in their T&C's stating that it is not acceptable to accept DSS Tenants into a property? What are the ramifications if a Landlord does allow DSS Tenants regardless of such a clause? Does anybody REALLY read their T&C's or is it just me again haha? Are most people breaching their T&C's regardless? My mortgage broker says :- Nobody ever reads them they just sign and carry on. He's never heard of a mortgage company even checking out the Tenants or their ability to pay rental price. He's never heard of a mortgage company 'calling in' a loan because a Landlord has let to a DSS Tenant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melboy Posted August 31, 2007 Report Share Posted August 31, 2007 It's the property insurance! If a DSS Tenant was to burn your property down then I can tell you that your Insurance company will not pay out if the Insurance Company has a clause which states no DSS. A recent case in Swindon highlighted this fact......it's all about disclosure to your Mortgage Company or Insurance Broker/Company and if anyone has ever had to make a substantial claim on insurance policy believe you me the loss adjuster will go through absolutely every fine detail to ensure the Company is paying out only on genuine claims. Always bear this in mind if your thinking that noone will ever know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J4L Posted August 31, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2007 No the insurance company has been changed to one that accepts DSS but the B2L mortgage states in their T&C's that the house is not to be let to DSS Tenants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GPEL Posted August 31, 2007 Report Share Posted August 31, 2007 The property is the mortgage companies until you've paid for it and it's not unusual for them to put this clause in for many reasons. Easy for your mortgage advisor to say ignore it but then he won't carry the can if DSS person does go in and there's a problem. Comes down to risk assessment and whether or not you think it's worth chancing it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melboy Posted August 31, 2007 Report Share Posted August 31, 2007 No the insurance company has been changed to one that accepts DSS but the B2L mortgage states in their T&C's that the house is not to be let to DSS Tenants. Bet you any money you like that even if you had DSS Insurance the company would either pay out a reduced claim amount or absolutely nothing becuase you failed to inform your mortgage company who technically own the house jointly with you. Your mortgage advisor is professionally wrong to say what he has said and I am surprised he has told you this info. as he is oh so wrong with his advice AND I would want it from him in writing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Dewsberry Posted August 31, 2007 Report Share Posted August 31, 2007 If HB payments are made direct to tenant and tenant then pays you cash each month it is " conceivable " the LL could never become aware that a T is on HB !!................>????????????? Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trenners Posted September 1, 2007 Report Share Posted September 1, 2007 Hi, This is interesting because the local housing allowance - that will be introduced to replace Housing Benefit in April 2008 - will be paid (in the majority of circumstances) directly to the tenant and the landlord will only receive the benefit payment if the tenant is deemed "vulnerable". Once the LHA is in place then it is going to be difficult for landlords to know whether their tenants have started claiming benefits or not. Ironically, of course, the majority of the UK population claim benefits themselves (eg: child benefit, child tax credits) - so when an insurance company states in their "small print" - no benefit claimants - I wonder whether they release they have excluded vast swathes of UK society ? Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J4L Posted September 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2007 I agree with that Mark. This clause actually says NO DSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trenners Posted September 1, 2007 Report Share Posted September 1, 2007 Hi J4L, What is funny about "no DSS" is, of course, that it was the DHSS (Dept of Health and Social Security) and this was abolished about 2 years ago and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) replaced it. So, if the mortgage companies are going to put the correct term in the small print, they should say "No DWP" Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Dewsberry Posted September 1, 2007 Report Share Posted September 1, 2007 You could be forgiven for thinking that "no DSS/DWP" actually means - no employees of the above !!????? Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J4L Posted September 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2007 Interesting point Mark and I think i'll use that in my defense should I ever need to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.