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

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.

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,

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,