Landlord sold property - sitting tenant question?

Yorkie1

G_M wrote: »

Having thought further....

Either the new landlord is unaware about landlord/tenant law and has no idea what he is doing, OR he is experienced and knows exactly what he is doing (but hopes his new tenant is ignorant)!

My thoughts exactly.

This links in to my suspicions about the type of mortgage he has obtained.

One wonders what else he might not get right ...

Werdnal

I would agree about not paying any rent to the new "landlord" until he formally confirms his official ownership. Perhaps she could contact the old/existing LL and verify that he has received all rent owed to him, then stop any SO arrangement. She should keep the rent aside, so it is available to pay immediately the new LL fulfils his official obligations to confirm his possession of the property.

Also, did she pay a deposit when her tenancy started? If so, does she have the prescribed information confirming which scheme it is with? The new LL will need to reprotect the deposit in a scheme once he has official ownership.

DVardysShadow

Werdnal wrote: »

.... Also, did she pay a deposit when her tenancy started? If so, does she have the prescribed information confirming which scheme it is with? The new LL will need to reprotect the deposit in a scheme once he has official ownership.

Time for her to put a shot across the new Landlord's bows and remind him that he will be responsible for the safe keeping of the deposit and that it is entirely his responsibility to ensure that it is transferred to him by the old Landlord. A letter to keep a copy of.

may_fair

flutterbyuk25 wrote: »

She has been living in a rented house since nov 2009. Originally had 12 month AST, now on a rolling month tenancy. Her LL has had property up for sale since Dec 2010 and it has sold this week to another LL.

She has just had text from new LL saying that in order for him to take possession of the house it needs to be vacant for a week. So he is asking her to move out for a week and then upon moving back in she will need to sign a new 6 month AST.

Surely this can't be right?

No, it's utter rubbish.

Your friend's tenancy remains in place regardless of the sale. The new owner simply steps into the shoes of the old owner/LL and, as G_M says, must serve notice under s.3 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 informing the tenant of the assignment of interest.

The new owner must also serve notice on the tenant under s.48 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 giving her an address for serving notices. No rent is lawfully due until he does that.

Nor is the tenant obliged to renew the contract with the new LL.

may_fair

Werdnal wrote: »

Also, did she pay a deposit when her tenancy started? If so, does she have the prescribed information confirming which scheme it is with? The new LL will need to reprotect the deposit in a scheme once he has official ownership.

Not necessarily. The new LL may merely have to notify the scheme currently protecting the deposit of the change of LL.

may_fair

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Time for her to put a shot across the new Landlord's bows and remind him that he will be responsible for the safe keeping of the deposit and that it is entirely his responsibility to ensure that it is transferred to him by the old Landlord. A letter to keep a copy of.

I don't see how this is a shot across the bows, to remind the new LL that he is liable for returning the deposit - he's liable anyway. No skin off the tenant's nose if the new LL doesn't get the deposit transferred to him by the old LL.

G_M

may_fair wrote: »

I don't see how this is a shot across the bows, to remind the new LL that he is liable for returning the deposit - he's liable anyway. No skin off the tenant's nose if the new LL doesn't get the deposit transferred to him by the old LL.

provided the deposit is correctly protected and/or the tenant has a receipt for the original deposit....

Alleycat

may_fair wrote: »

I don't see how this is a shot across the bows, to remind the new LL that he is liable for returning the deposit - he's liable anyway. No skin off the tenant's nose if the new LL doesn't get the deposit transferred to him by the old LL.

Actually it could cause problems for the tenant if the new landlord doesn't get the deposit transferred to him. I have a current case where the deposit was registered with The Deposit Service (they are an insurance based scheme so the landlord keeps hold of the actual cash). Property was sold to new company but deposit wasn't transferred. Tenancy ended and tenants moved out. The TDS were saying that if the new landlords could prove that they never got given the money, the TDS wouldn't pay out. The former tenant would then have to pursue an action against the former landlord via the small claims court.

DVardysShadow

Alleycat wrote: »

The TDS were saying that if the new landlords could prove that they never got given the money, the TDS wouldn't pay out. The former tenant would then have to pursue an action against the former landlord via the small claims court.

Hmm. You would wonder why the TDS would want to deflect legal action. Unless you were cynical.

Perhaps a tenant in this unfortunate position should be naming old LL, new LL and the TDS in any claim?

may_fair

The new LL is liable for return of the deposit even if it hasn't been transferred to him by the old LL.

The TDS are not noted for their accurate legal advice (being a deposit scheme not legal advisors).