Repossession in action!!!

planning303

Right i've just witnessed a repossession in progress opposite my house.

The Tenants are renting and have a tenency agreement

the baliefs entered through the unlocked front door and were promptly chased out by a pretty large dog.

The Tenant then came out to speak to the balief that they belived to be a burgerly.

The balief then issued a notice of repossesion to the tenant. They claimed that the original notice was issued on the 28 of october but they only moved into the house on the 2nd of november. the balief stated that they would be back at 18:00 with the police to evict them.

They returned as stated and smashed the door down and took posession giving the tenants a number that they can call tomorrow to collect their belongings.

It seems to me that this is an illegal entry on behalf of the baliefs on the grounds that the tenants have legal right to remain in the property because they only recieved the notice of the eviction today.

Opinions and next stage suggestions please!

clutton_2

sorry - for a bailiffs warrant to have been issued by the courts, many many letters would have been sentn to the tenant - giving them the opportunity to appear in court, to offer a defence, to ask for a final hearing -

this " i have not had the documents" is often the excuse used by professional tenants to get yet another court hearing to drag out the whole thing for an even longer period.


unless.. the bailiffs are at the wrong addresss.

planning303

I understand what your saying but i dont think that this is the situation in this case - i dont think i explained the details clearly.

the tenents have been paying rent but the landlord not paying the mortgage, so its the finance company who have taken possesion of the property and not the landlord (through the baliefs)

The landlord has the property with a buy to let mortgage, so doesn't when the finance company takes possesion of the property they automatically become the new landlord.

The current AST is still in action and if the finance company want the tenents out need to give 2 months notice as per the tenency.

pawpurrs

If the LL has permission to let the tennancy agreement should be a valid one, however I am not sure where they stand if the pocession was allready in force when they signed the tennancy agreement, its not like they have been there mths and then the pocession proceedings started?

planning303

I have thought about the dates involved with it and this is my therory on it!

the LL realised he was losing the house through non payment of mortgage. he's got some tenents in quick after he had technically lost possession of the property but hadn't physically had it repocessed.

Hoping that he could get some rent in and start making payments so to avoid losing the house. The mortgage company hasn't accepted this and has taken the property and evicted the tenents who i suppose would be illegal ocupents of the property.

Much like if i unknowingly bought a stolen car, the insurance company could come and take it perfectly within their rights.

silvercar

Nice theory, but there is no "technical loss of property", wither he has been repossessed or he hasn't. If he has been given notice that the lender intends to go to court to gain possession then he still has an opportunity to pay some arrears and stop the lender. He also has an opportunity to attend court and show the judge that he is now in a position to make payments and so avoid repossession.

If the court has allowed the lender to repossess then the lender has convinced the judge that that is the right course of action.

I don't know how the lender thinks that they don't have to acknowledge the tenancy. Whatever the dates, the lender supposedly gave a BTL mortgage so should be acknowledging the tenancy.

It could be an error by the lender's legal team. Not realising that there are tenants in situ and sending in baliffs when they should be serving notice on the tenants that they have reposessed.

planning303

silvercar wrote: »

It could be an error by the lender's legal team. Not realising that there are tenants in situ and sending in baliffs when they should be serving notice on the tenants that they have reposessed.

If this was the case, what would you suggest as the correct course of action from here?

Fire_Fox

Maybe the lender somehow withdraw the consent to let at the point that they issued the notice of repossession? If so then the lender would presumably not have to recognise the tenancy which started a few days later. Just a guess .... If the tenants have been evicted they need to find somewhere else to live and pursue the landlord for their deposit and rent back. IMHO there is no sense in fighting through the courts to remain in a property for a few months.

silvercar

Maybe the lender somehow withdraw the consent to let at the point that they issued the notice of repossession?

Can they do that? Isn't the whole point of a BTL mortgage that it protects the tenants rights to be in the property should repo happen?

MissMoneypenny and Franklee are the expert posters on BTL mortgages protecting tenants rights. Hopefully one of them will be along soon and offer opinions. One of the "sticky" threads at the top of this board discusses tenants rights with a BTL mortgage.

This one:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1377883

(If you post on that thread, one or other may have subscribed to it and notice.)

franklee

clutton wrote: »

sorry - for a bailiffs warrant to have been issued by the courts, many many letters would have been sentn to the tenant - giving them the opportunity to appear in court, to offer a defence, to ask for a final hearing -

this " i have not had the documents" is often the excuse used by professional tenants to get yet another court hearing to drag out the whole thing for an even longer period.


unless.. the bailiffs are at the wrong addresss.

But the tenants have only been at the property for a month! The letters you talk of would pre-date that.

I'd suspect the lender was awarded possession and then after that during the time it takes to wait for the bailiffs the landlord let the property again to this new lot of tenants. That way the landlord can pocket a months advance rent and possibly the tenant's deposit. (I wonder if the tenant's deposit was protected?).

Tessa did have a case where a property was let after a possession order had been granted so it does happen:

From Tessa's blog:
Agents letting property subject to a re-possession order:
http://landlordlaw.blogspot.com/2008/05/agents-letting-property-subject-to-re.html

Extract from this entry in Tessa's blog:
"I was consulted by tenants on one of these cases recently. They had rented what they believed to be their dream home, only to find two months later, the bailiffs at the door. It was a complete surprise to them because the possession order had been obtained before the property had been let to them!

Yes, amazing though it seems, the possession order was made several weeks before the tenancy was granted, and the date for possession in the order had actually expired the day before my clients tenancy started (by the way they know I writing this and have given their consent). Therefore the notice which mortgagees are required to serve on occupiers of properties did not help them, as it had been served over six months ago!"

In such a case the tenant could sue the landlord for breaking the tenancy agreement but if he's penniless it may not be worthwhile. Certainly the tenant should chase up where the deposit is and get that safe.

G_M

Seems to me that most of this is conjecture. None of us, including the OP, know the sequence of events or background to this reposession. Without the full facts, it is impossible to do more than advise the tenants (if the OP is still in touch) to seek legal advice (which I have no doubt they are doing having just been kicked out!).