We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
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.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Landlord has got away with my deposit - nothing the courts can do...
Comments
-
.Basically the Landlord is stated on the lease as the company name and the judge reckons that he could only pass judgment against the company - getting no one anywhere
Sounds like the guy owns the property and has leased it to his company. This company then sub let it to you. All perfectly legal, the company is then your landlord. I don't know where you deduce that the company is dormant, it may not own any assets but it is trading in the letting business.I'm a Forum Ambassador on the housing, mortgages & student money saving boards. I volunteer to help get your forum questions answered and keep the forum running smoothly. Forum Ambassadors are not moderators and don't read every post. If you spot an illegal or inappropriate post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com (it's not part of my role to deal with this). Any views are mine and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.com.0 -
I've done a company search on BMG Properties (PM for a copy, I have the Director's report as well)
Company House is showing it as dormant, however, it you have a contract with the Ltd, and the Director are attempting to act fraudulently, you can ask the court to 'lift the veil of incorporation' so that the Director can be personally pursued.0 -
when was this company set up ?0
-
troubledtenant wrote: »Basically the Landlord is stated on the lease as the company name and the judge reckons that he could only pass judgment against the company - getting no one anywhere.
FF - your clearly in my mindset - i just need a concrete way to get past the company vale.
Has this guy failed to show up in court? Has he shown evidence that he has leased the property to this company as Silvercar says? If a company goes bankrupt what happens to any property they have leased? Likewise if a company goes dormant what happens to any property they have leased? You need to find out if the responsibility falls on the director or back or the landlord, either way they are one and the same! Can you get an answer from Companies House or an online search perhaps?Declutterbug-in-progress.⭐️⭐️⭐️ ⭐️⭐️0 -
It was incorporated on 4/10/2002.
New Director appointed on the 22/12/20090 -
The company could be dormant because they've never filed any accounts. This obviously doesn't necessarily mean that the company is not trading.0
-
""This obviously doesn't necessarily mean that the company is not trading."
what else could it mean ?0 -
Well, if the company has undertaken to let a property even if the rent is not received by it, it is patently trading but it might suit the directors to look like it isn't. The rent and deposit was paid to the individual as opposed to the company wasn't it?0
-
BitterAndTwisted wrote: »Well, if the company has undertaken to let a property even if the rent is not received by it, it is patently trading but it might suit the directors to look like it isn't. The rent and deposit was paid to the individual as opposed to the company wasn't it?
correct - rent and deposit paid to the individual (the director of the company). The accounts filed show no official trading. I dont know that, if the company was the landlord and the director was pocketing the rent and deposit, this is a fraudulent act by the director of the company and therefore the judge will lift the veil of incorporation? I will only have one shot at getting the judge to do this so need to make it solid.0 -
Go and ask this question on landlordzone forums. they have some actual lawyers there, and anyone who is reasonably experienced in this area should be able to answer the question right away.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards