LL Didn't own house when he rented it to us

cjade82

Hi all I will try to make a long story short
6 Months ago we rented a cottage that was a holiday let,Ten agreement now over but LL renewed another 6 months great we though until a week ago i opened(In error) a letter (Eviction notice) addressed to someone else not LL.
This letter was from a property management company acting on behalf of the bank and was asking for response,I contacted company told them i wasn't addressee but lived at property.
I was informed that he wasn't allowed to rent property out as it was repossessed 1 feb 2010 and the bank was just honouring the current ten agreement which ran to 31jan2012 they asked to see ten agreement and proof I was paying rent and to who, Which i supplied them with.
This is where it gets tricky.
I was paying my rent to(what we though was) a letting agency
but when the management company got back to me they said that there was no such company and the name i provided them with had never heard of me???
When pressed with the fact they had proof that i was paying them money they yielded and said that it was an accountancy company and i was a client.Now
I turn super sleuth and it turns out that the accountancy company has our LL as a managing director and the executive director is the guy name on our tenancy.
Now these guys don't look skint they are MD's in companies that own Golf clubs,Hotels,Mining companies, Pharmaceutics companies, e-commerce companies so I don't understand why they would let a little 3 bed cottage be repossessed.
It also turns out that our neighbour is to be evicted in nov (same LL and a different bank is repossessing)
I am really confused by this and to cap in off i don't think ill get my deposit back as it the ten agreement it looked like it was being held in a scheme but no on closer inspection the schemes address is the same as the letting agency and accounting company and not one of the 4 i have read on here.
I don't know what to do any suggestions
many thanks
and sorry for the wall of text had to get this out there.

G_M

1st, stop paying rent till you have done the following. Keep the rent aside in a separate account ready to pay once you know what's going on.

1) What evidence have you got of a tenancy agreement? Contract? With whose name(s)?

2) Who owns the property? - you need to establish this firmly. Check the Land Registry for £4 here.. Not just the name on the Title but any restrictions on sale noted. Get copies of the court order regarding the repossession to ensure it is genuine.

3) Once you have done 2 above, you know who your real LL is, so that's who you pay rent to.

4) If someone who is NOT the owner/genuine landlord has been accepting rent, giving your receipts, negotiating new tenancy etc - that is fraud. Go to the police.

jjlandlord

G_M wrote: »

3) Once you have done 2 above, you know who your real LL is, so that's who you pay rent to.

OP's landlord is the person named as such on their agreement.
Now, whether that person had the right to let the property is another question...

I am really confused by this and to cap in off i don't think ill get my deposit back as it the ten agreement it looked like it was being held in a scheme

I think there is no obligation to protect deposit received for holiday lets.

In any case, the deposit is the landlord's responsibility. If it comes to that you should sue (money claim) the person named as landlord on your agreement to get it back.

geoffky

I wear scruffy clothes and smoke rollies.but i have a good few bob, do not let appearances deceive you..

franklee

jjlandlord wrote: »

I think there is no obligation to protect deposit received for holiday lets.

We do not know what type of let it is, it can be common to let holiday properties on assured shorthold tenancies for six months over the winter and that may be what the OP did, with another six months follow on.

OP are you talking about an AST? Is this your primary residence?

I agree with G_M, you need to do more research on the LL.

If you have an AST then I'd suggest you have a read of the last page of the consent to let sticky thread above, specifically the posts with links to more information about the Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010. That may help you, or you may be too late, but if there are any hearings for the bank repossessing then I'd certainly follow the guidelines for the new act, let them know you are the tenant, attend the hearings etc.

If you are too late then it may come down to your having to move at short notice, are you able to do that? If so it's worth making sure you know exactly when your liability to pay rent really ends, i.e. when your tenancy really is over as you don't want to move and then be chased for rent for the remainder of the fixed term.

This just goes to show that tenants do need to check out prospective landlords, look up the property ownership at the land registry and check for consent to let from the lender before they take on a tenancy!

As yours is an unusually complicated case can you ring Shelter for detailed advice?

JQ.

G_M wrote: »

4) If someone who is NOT the owner/genuine landlord has been accepting rent, giving your receipts, negotiating new tenancy etc - that is fraud. Go to the police.

I wouldn't bother with that one. It is the bank that have been deprived and it's their responsibility to sort that one out. If they ask you to get involved in a police investigation go for it, however, I suspect the bank won't want it to go down that road - so you'll just complicate matters by getting the police involved.

I would however be speaking to the bank about what they propose to do. You may find they are happy with you staying in occupation and paying rent - not many are wanting to crystallise their loses at the moment.

jjlandlord

franklee wrote: »

We do not know what type of let it is, it can be common to let holiday properties on assured shorthold tenancies for six months over the winter and that may be what the OP did, with another six months follow on.

OK, though it does not make much difference re. getting the deposit back at this point.

franklee wrote: »

I agree with G_M, you need to do more research on the LL.

But OP already knows who's his landlord!
On the other hand the owner of the property seems to remain unknown and should be sought. Also advice should be sought re. the status of the tenancy in relation to a change of ownership, Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010 could indeed apply.

cjade82

Thanks for the quick replies guy it all helps
To answer some questions this is a shorthold tenancy agreement on a 6month basis after 6months on a rolling month by month but agent asked if we wanted another 6 we said yes as we had no intention of going its not a holiday let but the cottage was used as a holiday let we are in devon.
The property is firmly in the hands of the lender repossession took place feb2010 the weird thing is is that the rent has been getting paid to the bank even when nobody was there.
This is a very small village in Devon everybody knows everybody's business and i have been told the property was empty for months before we got here just the odd week here and there and that the LL is a very dodgy character and has a very bad reputation for taking the money and running
He has been convicted twice for flytipping by 2 separate councils with fines of over 50k But this man is a chartered accountant.

With regards to the bank i have spoken the management company and they want to sell the property the eviction is set for jan2012 but in the other persons name so the bank have to get one in our name which means they have to go back to the solicitors but they are livid that they have rented it out without there say so and they did hint at trying for the fraud thing.
I suppose i am just hacked off at being stuck in the middle of this as we have 3 kids all under 7 and it looks like we may have to move again

franklee

jjlandlord wrote: »

OK, though it does not make much difference re. getting the deposit back at this point.

As the OP is still the tenant and it's an AST there is the option to sue for 3 x deposit if the deposit is not protected.

cjade82 there are three deposit schemes, can you check with each to make sure the deposit isn't with them?

jjlandlord wrote: »

But OP already knows who's his landlord!

If the OP can get enough details about his LL to think going after 3 x deposit is worthwhile that may get the deposit protected or returned without too much fuss. I'm not sure if having let without the bank's consent affects this, but if you're sure the person named the OP's agreement is still the LL I don't see why knowing it's an AST, so the deposit scheme applies, doesn't help with getting the deposit sorted.

jjlandlord

franklee wrote: »

As the OP is still the tenant and it's an AST there is the option to sue for 3 x deposit if the deposit is not protected.

While OP can indeed use the risk of being sued for 3x deposit to make the LL protect the deposit, I would not advise to actually sue for that: It's expensive, long and risky.

franklee wrote: »

I'm not sure if having let without the bank's consent affects this

This does not affect the validity of the AST.

franklee wrote: »

but if you're sure the person named the OP's agreement is still the LL I don't see why knowing it's an AST, so the deposit scheme applies, doesn't help with getting the deposit sorted.

The landlord is the person/company OP has a tenancy agreement with. Since OP has a written contract, then by definition the landlord is the other party on that contract.

Now, assuming the deposit is not protected (as suggested by OP) the fact that the tenancy is an AST unfortunately does not really help as in practice there is not much OP can do to have it protected apart from threatening to sue for 3x deposit and hope LL does not call it.
In fact, during the tenancy it might be advantageous for a tenant to let it slide as non protection of deposit shields the tenant against section 21 eviction.
At the end of the tenancy, to get a non protected deposit back the best option remains a simple money claim against the landlord if he does not pay up, imo.

franklee

jjlandlord wrote: »

While OP can indeed use the risk of being sued for 3x deposit to make the LL protect the deposit, I would not advise to actually sue for that: It's expensive, long and risky.

jjlandlord wrote: »

Now, assuming the deposit is not protected (as suggested by OP) the fact that the tenancy is an AST unfortunately does not really help as in practice there is not much OP can do to have it protected apart from threatening to sue for 3x deposit and hope LL does not call it. In fact, during the tenancy it might be advantageous for a tenant to let it slide as non protection of deposit shields the tenant against section 21 eviction. At the end of the tenancy, to get a non protected deposit back the best option remains a simple money claim against the landlord if he does not pay up, imo.

I agree leaving a deposit unprotected can guard against a S21 but I don't think a potential S21 is the problem in this case. If you mean more generally, as it's quick to protect the deposit a LL can easily do that if he wants to serve a S21 so I'd rather have my deposit protected in the first place. If a request for the deposit to be protected has been ignored I don't think chasing the 3 x deposit during the tenancy is any more risky than trying to recover the deposit after the tenancy is over. Of course the deposit could be returned or protected before court but that achieves what the T wanted in the first place. Leaving it till after the tenancy to claim the deposit back is worse IMO when it may prove hard to collect the money especially if a LL's financial position worsens as may well happen with a LL who had had a repossession or if the LL is likely to move away.

jjlandlord wrote: »

This does not affect the validity of the AST.

The landlord is the person/company OP has a tenancy agreement with. Since OP has a written contract, then by definition the landlord is the other party on that contract.

I'm not at all sure the LL is always simply who is on the tenancy agreement. Certainly if a property is repossessed the lender can become the LL. In the OP's case there is the complication of what happens if the "LL" didn't have the right to grant the tenancy in the first place (if the property had already been repossessed). I really don't know the details of what happens then, but would worry if it does call the validity if the AST into account. I think the OP needs to be seeking detailed advice from the likes of Shelter et al.