who owns items in rented property?

spidereyes

This is a bit random but Im just wondering where I stand with this should a situation arise.

Basically earlier in the week my rented property was repossessed by the bank - the bank have said they are waiting to instruct a management company to take over but in the mean time basically my property is unmanaged and as a result I'm unable to get any repairs done etc.

But this got me thinking, my property was unfurnished with the exception of the white goods - they are listed in my contract as being here but I began thinking does the ex-landlord have any claim to them as they were purchased by him or does the fact that they are listed in my tenancy agreement mean they are now part of the repossesion if that makes sense.

Im just curious because my ex-landlord owns a lot of properties (all of which have now been repo'd) and just thought it could be a way of him making some money if he claimed these items back and sold them or whatever, likewise if any of these items were to break Im assuming that under a new management company they would have to replace them under the tenancy agreement even if they did not supply them?

Bravehearted_2

Surely they belong to the landlord. He can sell them if he wants.

The bank gets the house not the house + stuff in the house.

DVardysShadow

Ownership of the items remains with the Landlord. The repo does not affect that and the landlord should be able to recover his chattels from the lender, although after a certain point, the lender might need to dispose of them.

The more interesting issue is if the [ex] Landlord comes to claim the goods while you are in the property. The bank are now your Landlord, so your ex Landlord could say that he is no longer responsible to provide those goods. However, I would argue that your primary contract is with him, so he is still responsible, albeit that the responsibility for the roof over your head now rests with the bank.

In your position, I would be changing the locks to pre-empt the white goods being taken while you are out.

spidereyes

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Ownership of the items remains with the Landlord. The repo does not affect that and the landlord should be able to recover his chattels from the lender, although after a certain point, the lender might need to dispose of them.

The more interesting issue is if the [ex] Landlord comes to claim the goods while you are in the property. The bank are now your Landlord, so your ex Landlord could say that he is no longer responsible to provide those goods. However, I would argue that your primary contract is with him, so he is still responsible, albeit that the responsibility for the roof over your head now rests with the bank.

In your position, I would be changing the locks to pre-empt the white goods being taken while you are out.

I have to admit this is something that I have been considering, I thought it was standard practice for locks to be changed after a repo? But I don't really want to be the one having to fork out to change the locks on all three doors.

I understand that ex LL would be entitled to the items but then wouldn't the new management be obliged to provide new items as they form part of my inventory and tenancy agreement?

To be honest the situation is a bit awkward at the moment - (ex) LL is telling us house is now nothing to do with him but bank are saying nothing is official their end (basically that I shouldn't have been told about it yet) - and what with Christmas I forsee that it shall be a while before anything is sorted.


To be honest we are wondering if the tenancy agreement is actually legally binding anymore as the contract was with the old landlord and not the bank?
We don't even really know where we stand with the rent anymore, we were advised to cancel the Direct Debit in the short term, which we did. I tried to contact the bank in regards to who we now need to pay. The told us to send them a cheque made payable to the ex landlord but send it to the banks address....

Its raised a lot of issues.....

DVardysShadow

spidereyes wrote: »

... To be honest the situation is a bit awkward at the moment - (ex) LL is telling us house is now nothing to do with him but bank are saying nothing is official their end (basically that I shouldn't have been told about it yet) - and what with Christmas I forsee that it shall be a while before anything is sorted.


To be honest we are wondering if the tenancy agreement is actually legally binding anymore as the contract was with the old landlord and not the bank?
We don't even really know where we stand with the rent anymore, we were advised to cancel the Direct Debit in the short term, which we did. I tried to contact the bank in regards to who we now need to pay. The told us to send them a cheque made payable to the ex landlord but send it to the banks address....

Its raised a lot of issues.....

It seems to me that may be the repo has not actually happened yet, but the Landlord is doing it voluntarily. If it has already gone through a court, you should have been notified of a hearing.

Now this all begins to get more complicated if the repo has not yet happened. In your position, I would be writing to both bank and LL stating that rent is being held to one side pending confirmation of the exact status of the property. If the repo has not gone through, you could be argued to be in the wrong for forwarding cheques to the Lender - and in your position, I would suspect that the lender were trying to stitch me up. I would be interested to see the opinions of others on this matter. Keep copies of your letters.

As for changing locks, well up to you. If the inconvenience resulting from loss of the fridge or freezer is bearable then don't bother. But the cost of the cylinders is relatively cheap and it is an easy DIY job to swap them over - and back again when you leave.

spidereyes

DVardysShadow wrote: »

It seems to me that may be the repo has not actually happened yet, but the Landlord is doing it voluntarily.

Now this all begins to get more complicated if the repo has not yet stating that rent is being held to one side pending confirmation of the happened. In your position, I would be writing to both bank and LL exact status of the property. If the repo has not gone through, you could be argued to be in the wrong for forwarding cheques to the Lender - and in your position, I would suspect that the lender were trying to stitch me up. I would be interested to see the opinions of others on this matter. Keep copies of your letters.

We phoned on the 19th to chase repairs needed since moving in and the LL said not his responsibility anymore - then that afternoon had a hand delivered letter through the door saying that from 'today' the bank had control.

They provided a contact at the bank, who I immediately contacted but he didn't want to give replies to my questions and did say that the legal team weren't yet involved? - The bloke went on Christmas holiday the following day so I spoke to his colleague who said he knew nothing about the case but he was the one who said about forwarding a cheque for payment.

They have confirmed that my tenancy is safe (well at least until its expiry) but thats about it.

It is a totally messed up situation that to be honest we would rather be out of if we could - which is why I wonder if my tenancy can be ended (on my part) due to the circumstances.

But to be honest Im incredibly reluctant to be paying anybody any rent in the circumstance - especially when repairs are needed (like heating fixed in several rooms!) but at the same time don't want to be getting into trouble for with-holding it

silvercar

You could ask to be released from the contract, the lender may be happy to have an empty property to sell rather than act as a reluctant landlord.

DVardysShadow

spidereyes wrote: »

We phoned on the 19th to chase repairs needed since moving in and the LL said not his responsibility anymore - then that afternoon had a hand delivered letter through the door saying that from 'today' the bank had control.

They provided a contact at the bank, who I immediately contacted but he didn't want to give replies to my questions and did say that the legal team weren't yet involved? - The bloke went on Christmas holiday the following day so I spoke to his colleague who said he knew nothing about the case but he was the one who said about forwarding a cheque for payment.

From whom was this letter? Your Landlord or the lender? It really is ambiguous from what you write, but the answer to this could make a big difference to your situation.

spidereyes

DVardysShadow wrote: »

From whom was this letter? Your Landlord or the lender? It really is ambiguous from what you write, but the answer to this could make a big difference to your situation.

Apologies - the letter was from the landlord, saying control was now with the bank and gave me a contact at the bank should I have any queries.

G_M

1) If the property has been repossesed via the courts (the only way it can be done) one of 2 things can happen:

a) the original landlord had Consent to Let or a BTL mortgage - the mortgage lender inherits the original contract which remains valid, just with a new landlord. That includes the agreed rent, the remaining Fixed Term, the Notice requirements if it is Periodic, repairing obligations, and provision of all items (eg white goods) listed in the contract/inventory. Yes, the original ones remain the old LL's property, but I would retain them if he requests them until the new landlord replaces them

b) the original landlord had NO Consent to Let or a BTL mortgage - the mortgage lender can evict you. However under the new Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010 you can apply to the court for two months grace.

2) until onership of the property is firmly established, I would pay no rent, in case you pay the wrong person. Put it aside as you will have to pay in due course. Only pay the bank once officially informed they have repossessed.
3) Watch for letters address to "The Occupier" - you should be told of court hearing. GO!

4) I would change the locks. It takes 10 minutes and around £5 to give you peace of mind at this uncertain time.

5) Repairs will, sadly have to wait. However, still report them in writing to (both?). If repairs are urgent (leaking pipes, broken heating) you may need to get them fixed yourself and claim back later. Again, write to say this is what you are doing and why, and get several quotes, keep them all and choose the cheapest. Keep the receipt.

clutton_2

sounds like the LL has given up and the bank still dont have legal control of the property... i would stay put until the legal department of the bank contact you .... if you leave early, without written consent, the legal department will more than likely chase you for unpaid rent, as they have a duty to get the most possible money for the LL when taking over his assets. Hold fire for the time being but change the locks to give you peace of mind in the meantime. Set the rent money aside carefully, so that when you do know officially who to pay, you can do so quickly and in full. If there are repair which are emergency, then i suggest you get them done, pay for them, keep the receipts and there should be no argument with the banks lawyers if they are genuine repiars and genuine receipts.