Help LL arrears

clutton_2

""Only allows litigants to have access to info"" - quite possib ly true

"if it is held by their opponents" - i would suggest you can apply for something ABOUT the litigant's opponents even if held by a third party ....

DVardysShadow

clutton wrote: »

"if it is held by their opponents" - i would suggest you can apply for something ABOUT the litigant's opponents even if held by a third party ....

Possibly true. But in that case, I think you have to have a jolly good idea they have it and be able to be fairly specific. Whereas against your opponent, you can demand anything relevant.

chappers

I too am in agreement with DVS normally I wouldn't suggest witholding rent , but in this instance I would.
It is worth ringing the mortgage company and asking if they have a BTL mortgage, explain you are concerned about your tenure as a tenant, they may not speak to you but then again you might glean some useful information.

roger196

Ask to speak to the legal department of the lender. Ask them to consider the following proposition. Say you do not expect an immediate answer as they may like to consider their position.
If the landlord did not have a BTL ( buy-to-let) mortgage, then the landlord falsely pretended to the tenant that he was able to grant a 6 month AST giving the tenant peaceful enjoyment of the property for six months. Thus the rent was obtained by false representation. This is a criminal matter under S.2 of the Fraud Act 2006. Fraud by false representation occurs when a person dishonestly makes a false representation (express or implied), to make a gain for himself or to cause loss to another (e.g. the loss of the tenancy)
If the lender refuses to tell you the position, can they then be considered as assisting the fraud.

Yorkie1

Your reasoning is a little flawed, roger196.

The lender cannot be guilty of assisting a fraud (even accepting your analysis of the criminal law, which is arguable) when the act complained of occurred many months ago, yet they are only being put on notice of the situation now. The mens rea does not coincide with the actus reus.

Any lender's legal department will completely ignore such an approach. You'd lose credibility immediately.

lightsoff

Thank you for all your advice. I will ring the lender for starters see if anything I can suss out. As a single working Full time mum its all very stressful and worrying especially when the money pit isnt so full at the moment!:cool:

roger196

Yorkie1 wrote: »

Your reasoning is a little flawed, roger196.

The lender cannot be guilty of assisting a fraud (even accepting your analysis of the criminal law, which is arguable) when the act complained of occurred many months ago, yet they are only being put on notice of the situation now. The mens rea does not coincide with the actus reus.

Any lender's legal department will completely ignore such an approach. You'd lose credibility immediately.

An interesting point of view. I was not contending that the lender would have been assisting fraud from the beginning.
The fraud occurs each time the tenant pays rent. Any rent paid AFTER the lender has been put on notice, may give rise to assisting the fraud.
Precisely where do you think my analysis of the criminal law is arguable. Where have I misread the Fraud Act 2006?

BASSETT

I`ve been there!!
Stop paying your rent, ll is obviously spending YOUR money on other things, and stop paying your council tax.
Look for someplace else.
Phone the lender and advise you`re living there etc, insurance will be invalid etc etc, the list goes on. They will tell you that you have no rights and they will not discuss anything with you but at least you have given them information.
Phone HMRC for tax evasion
It is not an offence to "unintentionally" open someone else`s mail, because if you receive mail through your letterbox, you assume it`s for you.
My ex ll has had her house repossessed and is now the subject of a criminal investigation as she let her house out without being registered (Scots law) but also let it out KNOWING her dire financial status.

silvercar

roger196 wrote: »

An interesting point of view. I was not contending that the lender would have been assisting fraud from the beginning.
The fraud occurs each time the tenant pays rent. Any rent paid AFTER the lender has been put on notice, may give rise to assisting the fraud.
Precisely where do you think my analysis of the criminal law is arguable. Where have I misread the Fraud Act 2006?

Well if the lender is repossessing that means the landlord hasn't been paying the mortgage.

If the lender isn't receiving any mortgage payments then he isn't receiving any rent and so he isn't party to any fraud.

Jowo_2

BASSETT wrote: »

stop paying your council tax.

There is generally a hierarchy of liability for council tax bills and it is quite often the case that its the tenant who is occupying the property who is responsible (unless their tenancy agreement says otherwise or its a licensed HMO, for example).

Therefore the OP should check the hierarchy of liability on their local authority website rather than stop paying the CT and risk being taken to court by the council.