Absolutely. I said this to all my tenants with whom I've a good relationship. If receivers attempt to collect rent the following scenario would kick in..
1. House with highest value would be named as PDH / PPR. Solicitor stated that this would force bank to use MARP process thus delaying repossession..
2. I would immediately stop paying current IO payments on all loans to bank (one of which is in substantial arrears).
3. I would halve the rent due to me and ask tenant(s) to continue paying me until they get written assurance from receiver that they can stay in properties till end of lease (5 year leases) at 'halved' rent level.
Of course they may choose to a) not pay me at all b) pay this 'half' to bank c) pay full rent to bank. But..
.. if they choose to continue paying me (half) rent, then -
A) They get to save the other half for future rent payments / house deposit elsewhere..
B) I continue to look after repairs / maintenance..
C) They're secure till they get eviction / vacate notice which they could drag out for as long as they want. (Which is usually a longer timeframe then if they were asked to leave by a landlord).
Also, if any property is vacated by tenants (prior to repossession / self adjudicated bankruptcy) I'll have a fire sale of fixture/fittings and the house will become impossible to rent. Proceeds to go to my bankruptcy costs (if done in Scotland then accommodation pre-payment, Tesco Food Stamps for six months etc)
If - or - indeed 'when' tenants start to pay bank instead of me - I'll initiate bankruptcy self-adjudication either here or more likely Scotland.
Having no rental income from properties (as rent would be forgone to bank) it would be in my interest to enter bankruptcy ASAP and force crystallisation of loan loss on Bank's Balance Sheet.
No one really wins in this scenario hence banks continued half-hearted attempts to get more income from me, i.e capital and that's fine by me.