my Leasehold/Freehold property and it's issues.

[Ethel Street]

I still don't understand why you are seeking 'legal redress' against the agent. What loss have you suffered? What would you expect to get redress for? Why are even bothering to get involved in this? Just tell the agent you aren't involved in the sale of the leasehold and the freeholder isn't interested in selling the freehold. Tell them again that that the freehold is not for sale and they should make that clear in their marketing. End of.

Edited September 30, 2019 by Ethel Street

[HP Mum]

HB - yes instructions to agent were from lender in possession of lease

 

Bazza - Trustees have been in touch by email / but agent not replying and the leaseholder/ lender is being obstructive.  They actually have an offer to buy lease.  Something odd going on as leaseholder has not accepted; rather are trying to make claim for fh.  Of course, all sorts of benefits come with fh (like development) and future increase of price.  But development not possible cos fh not for sale.  Don't know why they continue to try...

 

Ethel - both agent and leaseholder in possession had it in writing many months ago.  They have both sat on an offer for just lease - and they instead continue to market with the suggestion to buyers the fh is on offer for sale.  For clarity until lease is sold interest accrues, so the original tenant suffers.

Edited September 30, 2019 by HP Mum

[Ethel Street]

6 minutes ago, HP Mum said:

 

 

Ethel - both agent and leaseholder in possession had it in writing many months ago.  They have both sat on an offer for just lease - and they instead continue to market with the suggestion to buyers the fh is on offer for sale.  For clarity until lease is sold interest accrues, so the original tenant suffers.

 

Maybe the original tenant/lessee has suffered a loss because of the agents actions, maybe they haven't. We don't know enough to comment. But either way you don't seem to have suffered a loss or have any grounds for 'legal redress' against the agent. You've received an unsolicited offer for the freehold but you don't want to sell. Just say no! Then file and forget. Why are you getting more involved and talking about 'legal redress'? 

Edited September 30, 2019 by Ethel Street

[HP Mum]

Ethel - the little bit of research I have done is that the Estate Agents Act 79 says agents must not make misleading statements, falsely describe a property, show bias against potential buyers...

The agent has allowed a buyer to make an offer for the fh.  I have asked agent to advise when they were instructed to sell the fh and by who - because to mislead buyers in any way (according to the 79 Act) is illegal.  They cannot answer because they haven't been instructed and to admit that means they have acted illegally.... This is what I am trying to say.

To be clear - the original lessee suffers financially every day the agent doesn't sell the leasehold property.  

[HP Mum]

also I am wondering about these regs - [Agent] must not make a false or misleading statement about a property, or withhold information which would be of material interest to a potential customer. This is an offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

[BazzaS]

 

Quote

To be clear - the original lessee suffers financially every day the agent doesn't sell the leasehold property.  

 

And there we have it. Up until now, it has been lender (who repossessed the lease), and freeholder, being discussed.

 

You wouldn’t be / be connected with the original lessee, by any chance?

 

What with you trying (other thread) to establish the FH had never had notice of the repossession, and the lender had no way of contacting the FH, which seems at odds with “trustees have been in touch by e-mail”.

 

If you are / have a direct connection with the original lessee, AND you are an agent for the FH, you are at risk of breaching a fiduciary duty, if you let your interests towards the first affect your duty towards the second.

 

If you don’t have that connection to the original LH : stop looking to “punish” the lender / estate agent, and start working with them.

Edited September 30, 2019 by BazzaS

[HP Mum]

Bazza - Im not sure i understand?

Its not about Notice of repo - it is about Notice for fh.

 

Its obvious the original lessee suffers financial loss if the lender has taken possession and hasn't sold. The new leaseholder hasn't sold and is rather delaying the process instead to make a claim for fh (which they know isn't possible).

Fiduciary duty is crystal clear. 

 

I think I am just being inarticulate and making this more complicated than I mean my question to be.  I just want to know what rules and regs has the agent broken if agent is misleading potential buyers?

 

[honeybee13]

This isn't my field, but wouldn't it be up to potential buyers to complain about being misled, or the repo lender who might suffer a loss?

 

HB

[BazzaS]

10 minutes ago, HP Mum said:

Bazza - Im not sure i understand?

 

Lets get the situation entirely clear, then.

 

Were you the person who held the lease that the lender repossessed?

If not, do you have any direct connection to them?

 

Are you acting purely for the FH (The Trustees), or do you have any interest on behalf of the original lessee? 

[HP Mum]

HB - yes you are correct to an extent.  Here - the agent received the offer for fh   The repo lender wont suffer loss.  But the fh will incur costs to act against notice for fh

Edited September 30, 2019 by HP Mum

[HP Mum]

Bazza - this is the question I would like to have clarity on:

I just want to know what rules and regs has the agent broken if agent is misleading potential buyers?  With regards to this question - I am acting on behalf of the fh

Edited September 30, 2019 by HP Mum

[Ethel Street]

I'm just going to say this then bow out of this thread as you seem to me to be resisting advice given here because you want to pursue some legal action against the estate agent when you have no obvious legal status to do this. I really can't work out what you want to achieve.

 

You are not the leaseholder so any costs they have incurred because of wrongful acts by the agents (if there have been any) - eg delay in selling property because of incorrect sales particulars or failing to secure the property against damage - are a matter for the leaseholder &/or the lender who repossessed. Nothing to do with you, you have no legal standing in the matter and cannot seek legal redress yourself.

 

If there has been any misrepresentation which has caused financial loss to any prospective purchaser that is matter for them to pursue against the estate agent. Again, not something you have any legal standing in and not something that you personally can pursue for legal redress.

 

I really can't see what loss you have suffered yourself.

[BazzaS]

I can’t really say it any better than Ethel Street just has.

 

I’m still left with the feeling there is more going on here (based on the lack of response to queries here, and the overall ‘tone’ of both threads : OP asking the same question over and over, sometimes in different ways, but lack of engagement with the lender, with evasion as to what is REALLY wanted as an outcome).

 

Hopefully, if someone disagrees and has an answer for the OP they’ll join this thread : me, I’m joining Ethel Street .....

[ericsbrother]

why doesnt the freeholder just use the terms of the lease to recover the property themselves if it is becoming derelict? All propertly constructed leases will have a suitable term to allow this. the lender will then either have to make good themselves to protect their residual interest or just let the matter go and try and recover what they can for the mortgagee

[HP Mum]

Eric - this comment was very useful.  Thank you.   You are correct - the best route for fh to take....

[HP Mum]

May I ask how to stop dca and/or legal demand harassment?

 

A relative is constantly being anonymously telephoned, sent letters and having strange men turning up at their property trying to deliver legal letters/ serve notice/ statutory demand for someone that does not live at that address. 

 

They have previously 'returned to sender' the letters and advised on phone and to the strangers that they have the wrong address.

Relative does not have address of the person these people are trying to locate.

 

If relative opens the mail are they in the wrong? 

Even if they need to open envelope to see to where it needs to be returned?

 

And what happens if the letter contains confidential financial details of the person they are trying to contact?

 

I read somewhere that dca are not supposed to disclose someone's financial details to strangers - business colleagues, relatives, friends, neighbours, work etc

 

Is there something relative can do to prevent these people turning up again?

Should they just open and return to sender again as 'not at this address'

Thanks for best advice.

[dx100uk]

no problem in opening all the letters

it would be useful for you to be able to p'haps scan them up too to PDF

so we can see the people behind this.

 

then we'll know how best to sort this issue for her.

there maybe many reasons behind it, most are nothing to worry about

but 

it might be an advantage to do so in case there is fraud and or ID theft going on or gone on here in the past.

 

I will assume all the legal occupants have checked their own credit files just to ensure nothing untoward shows like strange accounts or linked addresses or financial links to unknown people?

 

in these cases its always better to thoroughly gather all evidence then we will be best positioned to advise.

 

dx

[HP Mum]

the most recent posted letter is (i think) notice of a statutory demand with a note saying people will attend property to serve papers on a certain day/time

[dx100uk]

that will be a process server.

as they have to serve it personally, to the named person, it will be interesting to see how they accomplish this.

 

is this consumer debt do you know?
 

[HP Mum]

I am not sure what the debt it is - personal or commercial.  I have not seen the letter.  But I can ask/ find out

Edited November 7, 2019 by HP Mum

[dx100uk]

you indicate in the title its a bank?

 

[HP Mum]

I don't know.  I will check what the contents say

[brassnecked]

 

Yes do as DX advises, otherwise you might have bailiffsHCEO turning up to enforce a CCJ on the non resident they are after, if you don't make sure they are fully aware that person doen't live ther, and that once they are aware any action against lawful occupier  will be classed as harassment and reported.

[Ethel Street]

Has the person they are looking for ever lived there? 

[HP Mum]

the letter looks like something anyone could have typed themselves.

No address/ no company details.

Just a private # to call

 

Its a simple letter advising someone will attend premises on certain date to serve statutory demand re insolvency.

Notes that if person not there the SD will have been deemed to be served by advertisement in press or through letter box.

 

Also notes in event of bankruptcy petition being presented, court will be asked to consider such service as service of the SD on the debtor.

 

The person concerned was there many decades ago.

 

Just to say there is no way of telling whether it's a bank, dca or person who is behind this 'process server'.  And there is no return address.  So what should relative do?  Normally people advise not to make calls!

Edited November 7, 2019 by HP Mum