Rented flat under threat of repossession, receiver appointed

rugbyleaguefan

Hi everyone!

We have been renting a flat for just over 4 months on a 6 month tenancy agreement, which we were hoping to renew for a further 12 months. However, the owner of the flat is in arrears on his mortgage and as a result the property has fallen under the threat of repossession. The dispute has been going on for months and recently we received a letter stating that a 'receiver' had been appointed by the bank.

I recently spoke to the company assigned as receivers and was told the following:

1. If we were to be chucked out, we would have at least 2 months notice.
2. Once we reach the end of our tenancy agreement, if neither party has given notice, we can remain in the flat on a rolling monthly contract.

Are the above 2 points correct? We are of course looking for alternative accommodation, assuming the worst is going to happen, but we really love the property we are in now and would like to stay for as long as possible.

We have been instructed by the receiver to make all future rent payments direct to them. However the owner has told us 'under no circumstances pay any rent to the receiver'. He is in court regarding the dispute before our next rent payment is due (which has to be paid by cheque), but only by a few days.

My initial feeling is to go along with the receiver, however we do not want to fall out with the owner! I am assuming the advice of most will be to pay rent to the receiver.

Finally, given the current circumstances, what would you predict the outcome to be? Is it almost certain that we going to be asked to leave?

We are hoping to get to the Citizens Advice Bureau to ask for help but it is difficult to get there when working all through the week.

Massive thanks for any help or guidance anyone can give us!

Radiantsoul

The receiver is presumably a Law of Property Act Receiver. I can't see that your landlord will be able to do much more than seek an order giving them some rights to sell the property themselves with authority from the court. I would consult the CAB, but they are going to tell you to pay the receiver.

SouthCoast

Advice from Shelter is here:

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/repossession/repossession_by_a_landlords_lender

DVardysShadow

My advice is to write to both and say you are keeping the money aside safely while teh matter is sorted out and ask both sides to state the legal basis of their claim to the money.

The risk for you both ways around is that you pay to the one without rightss and the other one can claim from you again. As the LL appears to be in financial trouble, it will be more risky paying to him.

DocProc

I'd sit tight and continue to pay your rent. Importantly, do make sure you get a receipt from whosoever you decide to pay it to.

If you pay anyone except the person you know as the owner, your Landlord, he is surely going to lose income and get further behind with paying his creditors.

But that is not your problem.

I would take advice from the CAB and pay your rent to who they advise.

And stop worrying. You like living where you are, don't you? And you are also paying the rent. I don't think anyone is going to ask you to leave. It's daft.

If the property is repossessed by the Receiver, then he would undoubtedly sell the property on as an investment property, including its tenant, who is paying a market rent and not in arrears. In such a position, the property will be worth more than otherwise. Thus it's likely to sell for a better price and settle more of the current owners liabilities.

silvercar

If the property is repossessed by the Receiver, then he would undoubtedly sell the property on as an investment property, including its tenant, who is paying a market rent and not in arrears. In such a position, the property will be worth more than otherwise. Thus it's likely to sell for a better price and settle more of the current owners liabilities.

Interesting view. I would have thought a property with vacant possession is of interest to landlords and owner occupiers, whereas having a tenent in situ limits the market.