Apartment being repossessed... What to do?

BitterAndTwisted

Dear Mr Landlord,

It has come to our notice that your mortgage-lender is preparing to go to court to initiate repossession of the rented property we occupy at 25 Acacia Avenue. Under the circumstances, we are worried about this situation and your ability to resolve it satisfactorily. In view of the fact that you have not registered our deposit with one of the three approved schemes and we have doubts about our prospects of receiving it back at the end of our tenancy, we are of the view that it would be in both party's interests for us to surrender this tenancy as soon as possible. Kindly note that we shall not be paying the rent due on the 14th of February due to the uncertainty of the situation we find ourselves in.

We look forward to your comments,

Yours etcetera,

Insecure tenants who are worried about their security of tenure and the security of their deposit.

franklee

princeofpounds wrote: »

The contract does not end until the court grants repossession. Then it ends immediately.

Do you know how the tenant's two months "notice" under The Mortgage Possessions Act 2010 works when there is a suspended order for possession?

princeofpounds

Do you know how the tenant's two months "notice" under The Mortgage Possessions Act 2010 works when there is a suspended order for possession?

Short answer is that I am not entirely sure, but on quickly reading the act (section 1.4 seems to be relevant) it gives the judge a power to suspend the order for 2 months.

So if the order is suspended for say 2 months for another reason then I don't think this would add a further 2 months onto the timescale, but you would have time and a firm end date.

franklee

princeofpounds wrote: »

Short answer is that I am not entirely sure, but on quickly reading the act (section 1.4 seems to be relevant) it gives the judge a power to suspend the order for 2 months.

So if the order is suspended for say 2 months for another reason then I don't think this would add a further 2 months onto the timescale, but you would have time and a firm end date.

Thanks.

The act seems mainly concerned with delaying the repossession to give the tenant time to move but as far as I can tell is a little short on explanation of what happens when the tenant wants to go, commits to leave, and then the repossession is delayed or staved off. If for example the landlord gets a suspended possession order and then pays off the arrears there wouldn't be a firm end date as the repo may not happen at all or at least till the arrears build up again.

Like this bit:

teeni wrote: »

2) Either apply to court ona n244 form asking to be heard at the proceedings ( bring copy of the tenancy agreement with you or attend the hearing with a copy of the tenancy agrrement and when they call the case ask the court to be heard and advise that you are asking the court to suspend the possession order should one be granted by 2 months under the Mortgage possession ( tenants protection from eviction act 2010) They may advise you to pay the rent to the mortgage company if the possession order is granted. You must have advised the motgage company of your presence and asked them to suspend the warrant for 2 months, even if they refuse it doesnt matter as the court has the final say.

It seems to me that if the tenant asks the mortgage company to suspend the warrant for 2 months before the hearing, and that's granted so the tenant arranges to move, then the tenant is jumping the gun as should the repossession be staved off at the hearing the tenancy would still bind the tenant. There seems to be a risk of the tenant owing rent on the old place at the same time as the new. Of course they must have thought of that but I'm puzzled how the logistics are supposed work.

princeofpounds

It's a good point, but I THINK that a suspended possession warrant normally requires a final hearing to be enacted, and the tenant should appear at that one also. The judge could choose to do a tenant-centric suspension then. The law says that it should be done with consideration of the tenant's circumstances.

But I have to admit I don't know exactly. In this case at least that would almost get the OP to the end of their tenancy anyway.

GDB2222

princeofpounds wrote: »

It's a good point, but I THINK that a suspended possession warrant normally requires a final hearing to be enacted, and the tenant should appear at that one also. The judge could choose to do a tenant-centric suspension then. The law says that it should be done with consideration of the tenant's circumstances.

But I have to admit I don't know exactly. In this case at least that would almost get the OP to the end of their tenancy anyway.

This is not my area of expertise at all, but heck that does not stop other posters from posting so why should it put me off? My vague recollection is that there are 2 types of possession order. The 1st delays possession whilst certain conditions are met, for example payment of the mortgage interest. The 2nd grants possession on a particular day, and as a tenant you can ask for that day to be put back by 2 months.

silvercar

It seems to me that if the tenant asks the mortgage company to suspend the warrant for 2 months before the hearing, and that's granted so the tenant arranges to move, then the tenant is jumping the gun as should the repossession be staved off at the hearing the tenancy would still bind the tenant. There seems to be a risk of the tenant owing rent on the old place at the same time as the new. Of course they must have thought of that but I'm puzzled how the logistics are supposed work.

Remember the landlord still won't know about the hearing as the paperwork goes to the rental property.

Also, if the 2010 Act is used then the rent payments go to the lender not the landlord, so the landlord (who is probably broke) has no money to pay off the arrears.

GDB2222

silvercar wrote: »

Remember the landlord still won't know about the hearing as the paperwork goes to the rental property.

Also, if the 2010 Act is used then the rent payments go to the lender not the landlord, so the landlord (who is probably broke) has no money to pay off the arrears.

The lender has to account for the rent receipts as interest payments, otherwise the lenders get a double benefit - guessing here, but ......

silvercar

GDB2222 wrote: »

The lender has to account for the rent receipts as interest payments, otherwise the lenders get a double benefit - guessing here, but ......

oops, didn't think of that

Still think the landlord won't know about the repossession if the tenants don't tell him.

jim-22

PinkLady25

I'm in a similar situation here in flat in Scotland.
I'd advise you to phone & speak to Shelter helpline.
I took advice from there & also from a second solicitor at a drop in legal centre specialising in Housing Law.

Both solicitors I spoke to advised that to leave flat I would break the contract with the owner but it could be argued that my 'quiet enjoyment' had been breached if he chose to pursue me.

Horrible situation isn't it!