PLEASE HELP!!! Tenant receiving a copy of the landlord's possession order

markiec

Thank you all so very much (with an obvious exception!) for the advice. I have a copy of my tenancy and also decided to include evidence of my regular rent payments which I will send to the lender, I'm also going to call the solicitor's to let them know I have received the notice and also send them a copy of the tenancy tomorrow (I will also be suppling them with the LL's current address which they clearly don't have as her post from Santander has been coming to her postbox outside the house). I will also give Shelter a call to see if they can advise further, and

I think if I can buy us a couple of months we should be fine, also storing funiture and staying friends maybe a last resort option!

Thanks for the great responses, will update you all on how it goes!

tbs624

markiec wrote: »

(I will also be suppling them with the LL's current address which they clearly don't have as her post from Santander has been coming to her postbox outside the house)

Pretty clear indication that your lovely LL has not got a BTL or CTL inplace or that mail would all be going to her new address

Thanks for offering to update - all helps others in a similar situation ( as well as giving you somewhere to let off steam )

Don't forget that check of the 3 deposit schemes - can be done online.

DVardysShadow

MadnessOfHPC wrote: »

It is highly immoral to squat in someone elses property and not pay rent, whether or not you think you are getting your deposit back is immaterial.

There is one circumstance where I WOULD advise the Tenant to hang on to the rent. And it is this one, where the Landlord is about to be repo'd. If this happens, the Landlord is not able to fulfill his part of the contract.

Also the Tenant is put in the very uncomfortable position of looking for alternative accommodation, without being able to commit to it because

• the repo may fall through and the AST may remain effective
• the deposit may remain in dispute or unreleased just when the Tenant will need it for the next tenancy

Of course the tenant should hold on to the money and probably send a polite note to the Landlord as to why the money is being held and state the conditions under which it will be remitted. Of course, this may be the straw which breaks the camel's back, but don't forget that in this situation, even if the Landlord did receive the money, it could still be the straw which breaks the camel's back if it doesn't get as far as the lender.

beth58_2

MadnessOfHPC wrote: »

It is highly immoral to squat in someone elses property and not pay rent, whether or not you think you are getting your deposit back is immaterial.

How can someone be squatting when they have a legally binding tenancy agreement? It's the LL whose in breach of the rental agreement not the tenant. Plus, how on earth are they supposed to pay when they cannot contact the LL?

tbs624

DVardysShadow wrote: »

There is one circumstance where I WOULD advise the Tenant to hang on to the rent. And it is this one, where the Landlord is about to be repo'd. If this happens, the Landlord is not able to fulfill his part of the contract.

Also the Tenant is put in the very uncomfortable position of looking for alternative accommodation, without being able to commit to it because

• the repo may fall through and the AST may remain effective
• the deposit may remain in dispute or unreleased just when the Tenant will need it for the next tenancy

Of course the tenant should hold on to the money and probably send a polite note to the Landlord as to why the money is being held and state the conditions under which it will be remitted.

The OP needs to check with the deposit schemes as a matter of priority before considering playing games with rent.

A T can't place "conditions under which it will be remitted" against the requirement to pay rent due under a contract without running the risk of it counting against them.

This is especially so if a T wants to make use of the Mortgage Repossession (Protection of Tenants etc) Act which comes in force next month, as I mentioned earlier.Note S1(5)(b)

1 Power of court to postpone giving of possession (1)This section applies if—

(a)the mortgagee under a mortgage of land which consists of or includes a dwelling-house brings an action (other than an action for foreclosure) in which the mortgagee claims possession of the mortgaged property, and

(b)there is an unauthorised tenancy of all or part of the property.

(2)When making an order for delivery of possession of the property, the court may, on the application of the tenant, postpone the date for delivery of possession for a period not exceeding two months.


(3)Subsection (4) applies where an order for delivery of possession of the property has been made but not executed.



(4)The court may, on the application of the tenant ( “the applicant”), stay or suspend execution of the order for a period not exceeding two months if—

(a)the court did not exercise its powers under subsection (2) when making the order or, if it did, the applicant was not the tenant when it exercised those powers,

(b)the applicant has asked the mortgagee to give an undertaking in writing not to enforce the order for two months beginning with the date the undertaking is given, and

(c)the mortgagee has not given such an undertaking.

(5)When considering whether to exercise its powers under this section, the court must have regard to—

(a)the circumstances of the tenant, and

(b)if there is an outstanding breach by the tenant of a term of the unauthorised tenancy—

(i)the nature of that breach, and

(ii)whether the tenant might reasonably be expected to have avoided breaching that term or to have remedied the breach.

If the tenancy deposit is definitely registered with a scheme holding back rent due is highly unlikely to be seen as a "reasonable" action

If however, the OP does decide to go down that route, then he most definitely should write to both the mortgagor and the LL stating what he is doing and that the rent money *is* available.

martindow

tbs624 wrote: »

If the tenancy deposit is definitely registered with a scheme holding back rent due is highly unlikely to be seen as a "reasonable" action

If however, the OP does decide to go down that route, then he most definitely should write to both the mortgagor and the LL stating what he is doing and that the rent money *is* available.

Assuming the OP is forced out by a court hearing and has continued paying rent in advance as normal his losses are likely be more than the deposit.

I think it is entirely reasonable to pay rent into a separate account to safeguard his interests.

tbs624

martindow wrote: »

Assuming the OP is forced out by a court hearing and has continued paying rent in advance as normal his losses are likely be more than the deposit.

I think it is entirely reasonable to pay rent into a separate account to safeguard his interests.

I am not disagreeing with that viewpoint , but:

(a) we are not the mortgagor or the court
(b) it's useful to consider the provisions of the Act ( generally, arrears/rent unpaid will count against the T
(c) as I said, OP should notify both the LL and mortgagor in writing if that his choice of route, making it clear rent is available.

SouthCoast

I think it is entirely reasonable to pay rent into a separate account to safeguard his interests.

I agree and I think that the courts would agree pending the resolution of the OP's current uncertainty.

tiny_tear

Doctor_Gloom wrote: »

Everyone do yourself a favour and put this muppet on Ignore.

Already is!
:rotfl:

unfortunately when I read the boards and forget to log in i end up reading his stuff

DVardysShadow

tbs624 wrote: »

I am not disagreeing with that viewpoint , but:

(a) we are not the mortgagor or the court
(b) it's useful to consider the provisions of the Act ( generally, arrears/rent unpaid will count against the T
(c) as I said, OP should notify both the LL and mortgagor in writing if that his choice of route, making it clear rent is available.

There is always the option of paying money into the court or offering to do so. It seems to me that it is actually in the lender's interest that the tenant hold on to the money safely rather than hand it over to a Landlord who is about to be repo'd. Of course that does not overcome the issue of the funds then not being available to use as a deposit on the next place. But if it is in the tenant's hands, it is at least useful to open negotiations with the lender.

And for sure, rent is in advance, so I would not be paying if I was not reasonably certian I was going to have the accommodation I paid for.

Finally 5 b) indicates there is discretion. I think if the money is kept safely and available for the lender, there is no good reason to evict immediately.