We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
Flat were renting in receivership
tranmereforever
Posts: 823 Forumite
Just had a letter through saying that the flat we are renting has fallen into receivership
Just wondering if anyone else has gone through this and whether it is an easy process? the letter says our tenancy is safe and that our deposit "should" be fine
Our contract expires next month, are we likely to get a new deal?
Just wondering if anyone else has gone through this and whether it is an easy process? the letter says our tenancy is safe and that our deposit "should" be fine
Our contract expires next month, are we likely to get a new deal?
July 2015 Wins- Shaun The Sheep Goody Bag, 4x Books
Year to date: £786
Total to date ( Since 2008 ) = £37,345 :eek:
Year to date: £786
Total to date ( Since 2008 ) = £37,345 :eek:
0
Comments
-
Do you mean the letting agency that originally let the flat has gone into receivership?
If so, I doubt there is much too worry about. The only possible issue is where you pay the rent to currently - be careful if it is to the LA. The receiver should had mentioned something about this, and/or take legal advice.
If you pay direct to the LL, no worries.
The TA will continue under a statutory periodic tenancy if no notice to leave is given.
It may be that the current letting book is sold onto another agency who may contact you soon, or perhaps you could contact the LL direct if you really want a new fixed term to be arranged.
The reason your deposit "should" be fine is that it's return will ultimately be the responsibility of the LL. Perhaps the deposit is protected by an authorised scheme giving you additional security - if it is you should have the details already."Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 20100 -
Am assuming that your tenancy is managed by a Letting Agency, or by a company set up by your LL?tranmereforever wrote: »Just had a letter through saying that the flat we are renting has fallen into receivership
when did you pay your tenancy deposit? If it was after 6 April 2007 then the deposit should have been scheme-registered and you should also have received "prescribed information" telling you about the scheme & how it works. Does this apply in your case?tranmereforever wrote: ».....the letter says our tenancy is safe and that our deposit "should" be fine
If the dates do apply but you haven't been told about it by the LA/LL you can check yourself with each of the three schemes:
TDS: [EMAIL="deposits@tds.gb.com"]deposits@tds.gb.com[/EMAIL] 0845 226 7837
TDSL: [EMAIL="info@mydeposits.co.uk"]info@mydeposits.co.uk[/EMAIL] 0871 703 0552
DPS: [EMAIL="enquiries@depositprotection.com"]enquiries@depositprotection.com[/EMAIL] 0870 7071 707
Save a copy of the response email (or ask them to confirm in writing if you are checking by phone) so that you have a record of the date on which the check was made.
That's not really anything anyone can answer on here, but the tenancy can become periodic, ie run from month-month on the same terms after expiry of your Fixed Term.tranmereforever wrote: »Our contract expires next month, are we likely to get a new deal?
If the property is managed by a totally separate Letting Agent do you also have the name and address of your LL? If you ask for this info on writing it has to be given to you by law within 21 days. You can then discuss your options with the LL him/herself.
You may find it helpful to ring the Shelter helpline for further suggestions: 0808 800 4444 (7 days , 8-8)
0 -
TDSL: [EMAIL="info@mydeposits.co.uk"]info@mydeposits.co.uk[/EMAIL] 0871 703 0552 02082 753260
According to https://www.saynoto0870.com
RENTING? Have you checked to see that your landlord has permission from their mortgage lender to rent the property? If not, you could be thrown out with very little notice.
Read the sticky on the House Buying, Renting & Selling board.0 -
Deposit should be in a scheme. If it is not, tenant can get court to order 3 times repayment. Landlord is bust, and Receiver unlikely to put deposit into Deposit scheme, so 3 times repayment will stand.
Claim goes against assets of failed owner, if payout from failed owner is greater than 1/3rd, then tenant does not lose out?
Thoughts?After the uprising of the 17th June The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?0 -
Deposit should be in a scheme. If it is not, tenant can get court to order 3 times repayment. Landlord is bust, and Receiver unlikely to put deposit into Deposit scheme, so 3 times repayment will stand.
Claim goes against assets of failed owner, if payout from failed owner is greater than 1/3rd, then tenant does not lose out?
Thoughts?
Oh God.
Does the term "receivership" imply limited company and corporate insolvency?
Yes, I thought it did.
And you think that you are going to get 3x the deposit out of a receiver? you'll be lucky if you get 1p in the £ back from the deposit if it isn't protected.
If the deposit is in a scheme whether agent or LL is inslvent then the deposit should be safe.
If the agent is bust then no one cares in any case
If the LL is bust and the deposit is not in a scheme then it will be up to the receiver to consider that the debt is preferential.
I guarantee that if the deposit is not protected and the LL is bust, then you won't be getting 3 times anything from the receiver.
I never cease to be amazed at the total rubbish people spout.0 -
Don't Panic capt Mainwaring.Captain_Mainwaring wrote: »Oh God.
Does the term "receivership" imply limited company and corporate insolvency?
Yes, I thought it did.
And you think that you are going to get 3x the deposit out of a receiver? you'll be lucky if you get 1p in the £ back from the deposit if it isn't protected.
If the deposit is in a scheme whether agent or LL is inslvent then the deposit should be safe.
If the agent is bust then no one cares in any case
If the LL is bust and the deposit is not in a scheme then it will be up to the receiver to consider that the debt is preferential.
I guarantee that if the deposit is not protected and the LL is bust, then you won't be getting 3 times anything from the receiver.
I never cease to be amazed at the total rubbish people spout.
All I am saying is that in this situation, if there are assets, the tenants claim will be leveraged 3 or is it 4 times.
Bust is when the concern is not able to pay back 100%. Whether or not this is helpful to the OP can only be determined by reference to the precise circumstances.
Rubbish you may call, but I think that you have become habituated to never failing to be amazed at the perfectly sane.
The proposition stands. If the property is in the hands of recievers and there are assets giving a payback of greater than 1/3rd, if the tenant gets a court judgement, then they do not lose out. Actually it is probably 1/4. Rational rather than emotional reaction still welcome.After the uprising of the 17th June The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?0 -
Don't Panic capt Mainwaring.
All I am saying is that in this situation, if there are assets, the tenants claim will be leveraged 3 or is it 4 times.
Bust is when the concern is not able to pay back 100%. Whether or not this is helpful to the OP can only be determined by reference to the precise circumstances.
Rubbish you may call, but I think that you have become habituated to never failing to be amazed at the perfectly sane.
The proposition stands. If the property is in the hands of recievers and there are assets giving a payback of greater than 1/3rd, if the tenant gets a court judgement, then they do not lose out. Actually it is probably 1/4. Rational rather than emotional reaction still welcome.
They won't get 3 times by taking the "estate" to court.
Do you really thing someone would put a valuable asset like a property under company admin if it was worth anything?
I'm not sure what insolvency case you have been following, but the last two were I was owed money, there was 3 times FA to distribute, and that was before the Administrators had a chip at it. And make no mistake, the Administrators in this case can prevent the tenant from doing anything that may harm the estate.
No legal action , the debt is part of the estate, not a separate entity, assuming you ever got to court and got a judgement.
Totally rational dear chap, and in our notional case the tenant gets to lose the court fee too.0 -
Of course not. They will get a judgement for 3 times plus the original deposit. So if the debts are being paid at 25%, they are covered. I am making no more claim that that.Captain_Mainwaring wrote: »They won't get 3 times by taking the "estate" to court.
Your notional case is you getting 0%. My notional case has the estate paying 1/4 or 1/3. Tell me how it wouldn't work in that case instead of inventing a different case and stating the obvious, that it wouldn't work in that case.Do you really thing someone would put a valuable asset like a property under company admin if it was worth anything?
I'm not sure what insolvency case you have been following, but the last two were I was owed money, there was 3 times FA to distribute, and that was before the Administrators had a chip at it. And make no mistake, the Administrators in this case can prevent the tenant from doing anything that may harm the estate.
No legal action , the debt is part of the estate, not a separate entity, assuming you ever got to court and got a judgement.
Totally rational dear chap, and in our notional case the tenant gets to lose the court fee too.After the uprising of the 17th June The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?0 -
Of course not. They will get a judgement for 3 times plus the original deposit. So if the debts are being paid at 25%, they are covered. I am making no more claim that that.
Your notional case is you getting 0%. My notional case has the estate paying 1/4 or 1/3. Tell me how it wouldn't work in that case instead of inventing a different case and stating the obvious, that it wouldn't work in that case.
Your notional case is based upon watching too much TV.
Your notional case takes no account of the Receivers powers to prevent action to the detriment of the estate .
Your notional case assumes that there will be any distribution after the Receivers have taken the fees and costs. The only people liable to get anything are the preferential creditors and the Receivers.0 -
How wrong of me to make this assumption, when all I am interested in is what happens given this assumption.Captain_Mainwaring wrote: »Your notional case is based upon watching too much TV.
Your notional case takes no account of the Receivers powers to prevent action to the detriment of the estate .
Your notional case assumes that there will be any distribution after the Receivers have taken the fees and costs. The only people liable to get anything are the preferential creditors and the Receivers.
Stick a pin in yourself Mainwaring, before you go pop.After the uprising of the 17th June The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.1K Spending & Discounts
- 243.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 597.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.5K Life & Family
- 256K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards