HELP! Son's L/lady got repo court date!

floss2

Help! I've just had a call from my son who rents a shared flat in London with 2 student mates.

Apparently a letter arrived there today for "The Occupier", so they opened it, thinking it was for one of them.

It was from the landlady's mortgage company, giving a court date for the repossession hearing, as she has not been paying her mortgage.

They pay rent direct to her, their rent is due on Monday. The legal firm who drew up their contract have advised them not to pay, but I'm not sure that this is the right thing to do..... I would have thought that repossession would be harder with sitting tenants, especially if they have been paying their rent?

Has anybody got any advice / help? We live 240 miles away, so are feeling a bit helpless at the moment...

embelliss

I don't know much about this, but if I were your son, I'd call up the phone number that should be on the letter- and explain they are tenants- and give the landlords address.
They might not know that she has tenants?

barnaby-bear

floss2 wrote: »

I would have thought that repossession would be harder with sitting tenants, especially if they have been paying their rent?

Has anybody got any advice / help? We live 240 miles away, so are feeling a bit helpless at the moment...

Sadly no the repo between LL and mortgage company. No stay on the repo because of tenants. If the mortgage company gave permission to let or it was a proper BTL they should honour the 2 months statutory notice but in the event of a repo the tenants have no right to notice - that contract between LL and tenants.... they can pursue the LL for their costs... worst case if they pay the rent is that they will have to leave anyway and paid an extra month for no extra rights... contact the mortgage co. and beg for notice

morg_monster

If its a proper contract, it still holds regardless of who owns the house, ASSUMING the landlord had permission to let. But they SHOULD pay their rent as normal this month - otherwise they could give the bank a way to evict them sooner rather than later. Also if the LL doesn't get her rent paid on time, that could adversely impact the chances of repossession (that money could be used to go towards mortgage arrears).
If the LL does get repossessed, then your son and his mates may just find the bank (new owners) giving notice at the first possible opportunity. Depending on what kind of contract they're on, that could be with 2 months notice, or at the end of their 6 or 12m contract, or according to any break clause.

Basically as long as they have a proper contract and the LL has permission to let from mortgage lender, their situation has NOT changed. The bank or other new owners can get rid of them exactly the same way the landlady could have, within the bounds of the contract.
If the contract was drawn up by a legal firm then it surely is all legit - BUT I fear the information about withholding rent was very bad advice. Remember - the landlady still owns the house at this point. I think they owe the rent as normal.

barnaby-bear

morg_monster wrote: »

If its a proper contract, it still holds regardless of who owns the house, ASSUMING the landlord had permission to let. But they SHOULD pay their rent as normal this month - otherwise they could give the bank a way to evict them sooner rather than later. Also if the LL doesn't get her rent paid on time, that could adversely impact the chances of repossession (that money could be used to go towards mortgage arrears).
If the LL does get repossessed, then your son and his mates may just find the bank (new owners) giving notice at the first possible opportunity. Depending on what kind of contract they're on, that could be with 2 months notice, or at the end of their 6 or 12m contract, or according to any break clause.

Basically as long as they have a proper contract and the LL has permission to let from mortgage lender, their situation has NOT changed. The bank or other new owners can get rid of them exactly the same way the landlady could have, within the bounds of the contract.
If the contract was drawn up by a legal firm then it surely is all legit - BUT I fear the information about withholding rent was very bad advice. Remember - the landlady still owns the house at this point. I think they owe the rent as normal.

Wrong!!!!!!! In the event of repossession even with permisission to let the mortgage company does not have to honour the rental contract it is between the LL and tenant. Most will honour the notice period if permission to let obtained though.

barnaby-bear

morg_monster wrote: »

If its a proper contract, it still holds regardless of who owns the house, ASSUMING the landlord had permission to let. But they SHOULD pay their rent as normal this month - otherwise they could give the bank a way to evict them sooner rather than later..

If what you were saying was true, that would make no sense - a section 8 for arrears can't be served until greater than 2 months arrears.......

morg_monster

Thanks BB for the correction. useful. Sorry for any confusion, OP.

morg_monster

barnaby-bear wrote: »

If what you were saying was true, that would make no sense - a section 8 for arrears can't be served until greater than 2 months arrears.......

No I know that it is 2 months arrears... but if they withold rent this month, and it isn't sorted out by next month, and they don't pay again, then suddenly they are in 2 months arrears. I just thought it would not be a road they want to start down at this point.

franklee

If the lender has given consent to let they will honour the contract, but that does not necessarily mean being bound till the end of the fixed term as they can give two months notice under ground 2.

From a tenant's point of view two months notice is much better than nothing but in the OPs case we do not know if there is consent to let, so I'd ring up the lender and see what the situation is.

I'm also puzzled by the reference to the legal firm who drew up their contract, did the tenants arrange for the tenancy agreement to be drawn up? That's very unusual.

Treadmill

Do mortgage companys write to the occupier ? I don't think so. Tut Tut for tampering with someone elses post.

morg_monster

I think it is pretty standard to write to the occupier in case of a repossession - for exactly the reason in this thread - so that if it isn't the owner living there, the occupiers (ie tenants etc) know what is happening. I'm sure I've seen it numerous times on these boards and definitely more frequently recently...