Hi,

I recieved a letter from the county court informing me that the flat we rent was to be repossesed.

I attended the court hearing, unlike the landlords who did not.

I spoke to the banks solicitor who said the landlords did not have a buy-to-let mortgage, nor did they have permission to rent the property.

During the hearing it was made clear that the landlords had not paid a penny of thier mortgage (which they took out over a year ago).

The judge told me to cancel any rent payments and told me I had 56 days to find somewhere else before the bank could send in baillifts.

I contacted my letting agency to tell them this and warn them I was canceling the standing order, they where sympathetic saying they had not been able to contact the landlord for weeks.

Today the director of the letting agancy rang me to say he had spoken to the landlord and that the landlord had contacted the court and been told there was no ruling that I should not pay rent and that his mortgauge was perfectly legel with regards renting the property.

The agancy warned me to start paying rent or legal action would be taken They also said: "...that the judge had probably gotten it wrong about not having to pay rent as he was probably not an expert on the subject" and that I should continue paying to avoid any legal action "???

I rang the court to ask for full written details of the hearing, they told me they had not be drawn up yet and that if I emailed the court I could request them be sent to me when they where drawn up and ready.

This left me confused , if a judge tells me to do somthing, I take that as being "the law"... now the letting agency is telling me they know better?

Where do I stand on this? I'm getting evicted by the bank in 38 more days, what can the landlord do If I dont pay rent for next month? he doesn't legaly own the property any more, does he? And I have it from a judge that I should not pay any more rent.

My lease was initialy 6 months and is now renewed on a monthly basis, if thats of any help...

Also my deposit is protected by the DPS... Am I due it back now as the landlord was never allowed to lease the property and it is now owned by the bank?

Thanks,

Just a couple more questions....

1) Does the landlord allowing the property to be repossesed breach article 5.2 in the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement?:

"To allow the Tenant quiet enjoyment of the Property..."

Is his mortgage lender evicting us affecting our "quiet enjoyment"? and if so, is it considered to be the landlords fault ?

The banks solicitor claimed that the landlords mortgauge does not allow letting of the property.... it seems this definatley breaches 5.4:

"That he is the sole owner of the leasehold or freehold interest in the Property and that all necessary consents to allow him to enter into this agreement (superior lessors, mortgage lenders or others) have been obtained in writing."

Except the landlord is telling the agency his mortgage does allow it.... how can I aquire proof of the solicitors claims of the landlord illegally letting the flat?

Thanks again,

I would suggest that he didn't contact the court.

Do not pay any rent to the agency.

If the judge has got it wrong, they can appeal to the court to get it changed, somehow I don't think they will.

If you know the mortgage company that gave the loan, write to them and ask permission to stay in the house paying rent to them until such time as you have found another place.

They may in fact wave any rental payments and could extend your stay.

OP Conniff is correct don't pay either the LL or the agency

Also if the agency was responsible for letting the flat I suspect that they are backing the landlord because if it's true the LL didn't have a buy to let mortgage they could also be liable to you for neglecting to check this before taking on the letting in the 1st place.

OP Conniff is correct don't pay either the LL or the agency

This is an understandable response, but this does not alter the fact that rent is due and the tenant is liable to pay. If OP decided not to pay the LL or LA at the moment then the rent money should be kept and remain available. It certainly does not mean that the OP can live in the property rent free.

Also if the agency was responsible for letting the flat I suspect that they are backing the landlord because if it's true the LL didn't have a buy to let mortgage they could also be liable to you for neglecting to check this before taking on the letting in the 1st place.

Always remember that the letting agent is simply an agent for the landlord and is acting under his instructions. It is highly improbable that the agent would be liable as in most agency agreements the owner confirms that he has permission to let from any mortgage company.

The judge told me to cancel any rent payments

During the hearing it was made clear that the landlords had not paid a penny of thier mortgage (which they took out over a year ago).

Which means that the flat is owned by the bank, and if any rent is due, then it is due to the bank and not the LL or agent.

Always remember that the letting agent is simply an agent for the landlord and is acting under his instructions

And the tenant is acting under the instructions of the court.

Many work on the mistaken premise that they don't but an agent does have the same responsibilities as their client otherwise all the franchised dealers would be telling us to get lost when we returned a faulty purchase.

The agent should have sort & been given assurances + written evidence that the LL had a suitable mortgage allowing him to let

The bank has made it clear that the LL does not have a buy to let mortgage & if it's proven he bought the property with the intention of letting it he commited a criminal offence by failing to disclose this fact on his mortgage application which when signed is a 'statement of truth'

Many work on the mistaken premise that they don't but an agent does have the same responsibilities as their client otherwise all the franchised dealers would be telling us to get lost when we returned a faulty purchase.

I see where you are coming from, but I do have to disagree with you here.

A franchised dealer normally operates under a licence issued by the giver of the franchise. A franchisee is not an agent, but a licensee, and every franchise agreement I have seen always puts all risks of the business in the hands of the franchisee, and regardless of profitability a levy based on turnover, with perhaps single additions such as national marketing fee.

For the avoidance of doubt, near the main entrance (if a retail franchise) would be a notice. It would say something like "Macfrugals is a trading style of Esio Trot, used under licence from Macfrugals (UK) Limited"

Agency law is very powerful, and most landlords don't realise that most of the actions of a letting agent are imputed* to the principle i.e. landlord.

* The Free Dictionary: n the legal sense, the term imputed is used to describe an action, fact, or quality, the knowledge of which is charged to an individual based upon the actions of another for whom the individual is responsible rather than on the individual's own acts or omissions. For example, in the law of agency, the actions of an agent performed during the course of employment will be attributed to the agent's principal. The doctrine of imputed Negligence makes one person legally responsible for the negligent conduct of another.

This is why tenancy agreement have the name of the landlord, not the agent - though a managed property will usually have the agents address, not the landlords.

Where a tenant takes out a legal action they can, and often do, name the landlord and letting agent, in most cases the agent can get their name struck from the claim. The main exception to this is where the agent hold the security deposit as Stakeholder. This is because the agent is then in a quasi-trustee position and cannot legally act in relation to the disposal of the deposit without the consent of both parties. Our agency has sat on a deposit of £950 since 2002 - landlord and tenant will not agree on even partial disposal, and neither will seek a court order to determine it.

Which means that the flat is owned by the bank

Thanks for all the responses guys.... Conniff is correct about the bank owning the flat, they won the hearing and they repossesed it.

So right now the bank own the flat, but the landlord and agency are barking at me for the rent.

Is it even conceivable that some one who does not own a property can charge me rent on it? :?

As far as was made out at the hearing: I'm living in the banks flat, rent free, until the 14th July when they have permission to send balifs in.

The contract between the franchise (agent) the supplier (LL) is irrelevent as the buyer (tenant) took no part in its formulating.

Therefore the supplier (agent) does have a duty of care to the buyer (tenant) If they marketed the property as a let when is wasn't lawful to do so then they are as liable as the LL

The agreement & probably will pass any liability to the LL but only as far as the agent is concerned. The liability for the problem lays with the agent who can then choose to introduce the LL into any proceedings as a co-defendant

Thanks for all the responses guys.... Conniff is correct about the bank owning the flat, they won the hearing and they repossesed it.

 

So right now the bank own the flat, but the landlord and agency are barking at me for the rent.

 

Is it even conceivable that some one who does not own a property can charge me rent on it? :?

 

As far as was made out at the hearing: I'm living in the banks flat, rent free, until the 14th July when they have permission to send balifs in.

Neither the landlord nor the agency have any rights or claims to benefit or title any longer.

If they send you any letters or phone you, just ignore them. If those letters or phone calls are threatening in any way, you can take them to the police. If they come knocking on the door, don't let them in and if they get awkward, again, call the police, they will enforce the judges instructions.

If there are any demands, keep the bank in the picture as well, they will be on your side and can take further action against the LL and agency.

& if you can change the locks. You should also write, sending it special delivery, telling them both formally that as the bank now have possession of the property that any further attempts by them to extort money or interfere with the flat by entering it will be reported to the police

Therefore the supplier (agent) does have a duty of care to the buyer (tenant) If they marketed the property as a let when is wasn't lawful to do so then they are as liable as the LL

 

The agreement & probably will pass any liability to the LL but only as far as the agent is concerned. The liability for the problem lays with the agent who can then choose to introduce the LL into any proceedings as a co-defendant

This discussion is going nowhere.

It seems to me that your concept of agency law differs from mine. May I suggest you read Outline of the Law of Agency which should be available from any large library.

This is an understandable response, but this does not alter the fact that rent is due and the tenant is liable to pay. If OP decided not to pay the LL or LA at the moment then the rent money should be kept and remain available. It certainly does not mean that the OP can live in the property rent free.

I think you should read through the thread again. There is NO rent due, the court judge has said so and no agency can overrule a court, neither can a landlord.

The flat has been repossessed, the LL nor the agency have any claim on it any longer. If they entered the flat they would be breaking and entering.

If there was rent due, it would be payable to the bank and not the agency or LL.

Hi All

Tha exact same thing happened to me a few years ago i was living in a house with my 3 daughters and my eldest daughter who was 3/4 at the time opened a letter addressed t the landlord it said the house was going to be repossed due to non payment of mortgage

I immediatlely went to see a solicitor who sued my landlord for me for not allowing me to enjoy the property as questioned my the OP after it went to court and the house was taken back by the bank i was given the next 2 months rent as "compensation" and also a months rent after i moved

Not sure if that helps any just thought i,d mention it

Thanks

Meg&Mog

Hi, my partner and I have been renting a property for the last 3 months, and we have recieved numerous letters from the landlords bank and the banks solicitors stating that they are applying for a warrant of eviction.

We are now in reciept of the warrant and we are due to move out the day before the warrant takes place. I have informed the Landlord of our intentions and he is very blase about the repossession taking place. He said we should trust him and that it will be sorted out before this date.

We are not trusting this person as he is not reliable. When we moved in there were numerous jobs that needed doing, and he put them off until sick of waitng for him, we did the jobs ourselves. There are still jobs that need doing to the property but he doesn,t seem worried about the house falling to rack and ruin.

He has not entered our deposit, as far as we are aware, into an approved scheme, as we have had no word from such a place. The letting agents who took our money originally have denounced all responsibility saying that they passed our monies onto the LL and that he was now responsible for it.

And to rub salt into the wound we had to show another letting agent around our house on behalf of the LL with a lightly veiled threat of "keeping whats between us, between us.

Any thoughts or advice would be gratefully appreciated. Thanks

Have you obtained alternative housing? if so see a solicitor. There is legal help (aid) for housing problems

Thanks Meg&Mog that is very reassuring information

Are there any legal-eagles about that can verify that my case also constitutes a breach of the "quiet enjoyment" agreement in the Assured Short Hold Tennancy Agreement?

Thanks again guys