Idea: let it be a criminal offence (or else a civil wrong triggering a damages claim) for a mortgagor [owner who mortgaged property] to let it out to T without first obtaining- and producing to T) the mortgagee's written consent. Why should an [innocent] mortgagee be able to evict an [innocent] T, just because a [guilty] L failed to ask for consent to sublet?
Why does this idea matter?
Tenants do rightly have protection- e.g. Housing Act 1988.
L can effectively evade that by scamming T and letting without mortgagee's consent.
How unfair is that?!