MAJOR help needed... typical LA

propertyman

marliepanda wrote: »

I do have the landlords name and the address is c/o the LA.

Please read my post again; in addition section 47 and 48 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 must give their address, not an agents except in the case of an address for proceedings or notices.

BitterAndTwisted

What does the entry for the property at the Land Registry have to say?

franklee

propertyman wrote: »

Please read my post again; in addition section 47 and 48 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 must give their address, not an agents except in the case of an address for proceedings or notices.

There is a difference between the address for service of notices and disclosure of landlord’s identity.

Under the requirements of section 48 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 rent is not lawfully due unless the tenant has been given, in writing, an address in England and Wales at which notices can be served. It's OK to use the address of an agent for this and if this address was given in e.g. in the tenancy agreement as the address upon which notices can be served then that is sufficient. So marliepanda has that OK.

This is different to Disclosure of landlord’s identity under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for which it needs to be the landlord's address as you said. Here address is defined as a person’s place of abode or place of business or, in the case of a company, it's registered office. So for that the agent's address does not suffice.

marliepanda

What would the land registry say that would be helpful? or with BTL will it list the landlords other address?

Like I said I am 90% sure the person I rang on friday was the LL. I get a lot of wrong numbers and I am always just polite and say I think youve got the wrong number. I dont go a bit schizo and put the phone down...

propertyman

franklee wrote: »

There is a difference between the address for service of notices and disclosure of landlord’s identity.

You ,may misunderstand my post I made clear reference to Section 47 which requires the identity and address of the landlord to be declared.It must be their address, and if they are outside E & W
must additionally provide an address in E & W.

Section 48 goes on to require an address for service of notices or proceedings, as we have both posted.

A third party address is acceptable, however the Court has recently taken a dim view of a corporate landlord using the agents address for both S 47 & 48.

franklee

marliepanda wrote: »

What would the land registry say that would be helpful? or with BTL will it list the landlords other address?

Like I said I am 90% sure the person I rang on friday was the LL. I get a lot of wrong numbers and I am always just polite and say I think youve got the wrong number. I dont go a bit schizo and put the phone down...

If the property was purchased as an investment then you would expect to see a separate address for the owner at the land registry.

If it was her home but it's been let for some years then again I would expect to see the landlord's address has been updated at the land registry. (It's a security risk not to, also the entry will be updated if she changes lender etc.).

It shows who the lender is, useful to know so you can look out for letters from them for the landlady arriving at your home. If they do it would indicate that the lender does not know the landlady lives elsewhere, which you would not expect if there is consent to let. You can check to see if she has postal redirection by writing her name on an envelope and posting it to your home, see if you get it back LOL.

I am guessing she used to live there as you used to get letters for her. If that was recently the land registry may not help as it may not have been updated but it's only four quid to give it a go. In which case maybe the neighbours know her?

The land registry will also give the name of the property owner which is always worth confirming, including that you've got it spelt right.

Also worth checking direct with TDS that your deposit is there. Dig out the prescribed information if you were given that and see if that has any information about your landlord.

But really the best way is to write to the agent and ask for it under Section 1 Disclosure of landlord’s identity of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as per the extract posted by propertyman in post #249. If they do not comply within the 21 days then you let your newly acquired contact the TRO/tenancy advocate at the local council know and they should kick some !!!. If they don't then I'd be writing to my MP about it when everything is over.

After the tenancy is finished maybe you will want to document your whole experience in a letter to your MP, copied to Jack Dromey and Grant Shapps:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/54564553#Comment_54564553

Anyway I would hope that any landlord hearing what's gone on would ask their agent to cool it.

franklee

propertyman wrote: »

You ,may misunderstand my post I made clear reference to Section 47 which requires the identity and address of the landlord to be declared.It must be their address, and if they are outside E & W
must additionally provide an address in E & W.

Section 48 goes on to require an address for service of notices or proceedings, as we have both posted.

A third party address is acceptable, however the Court has recently taken a dim view of a corporate landlord using the agents address for both S 47 & 48.

As far as I know marliepanda hasn't got a demand for rent, besides according to PainSmith here are no sanctions for not giving the actual address according to Section 47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (if you refer to Beitov Properties Ltd v Elliston Martin). Link here:
http://blog.painsmith.co.uk/2012/05/16/attention-all-landlords/

So I would stick with Section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for which there is a clear offence if not compiled with.

propertyman

franklee wrote: »

As far as I know marliepanda hasn't got a demand for rent, besides according to PainSmith here are no sanctions for not giving the actual address according to Section 47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (if you refer to Beitov Properties Ltd v Elliston Martin). Link here:
http://blog.painsmith.co.uk/2012/05/16/attention-all-landlords/

So I would stick with Section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for which there is a clear offence if not compiled with.

And they are wrong; while the case was naturally about service charges, you cannot consider subsection 2 without subsection 4.

That also makes it applicable to any sums due under a tenancy whether demanded or not, the penalty being that until they comply, it is not due.

marliepanda

franklee wrote: »

I am guessing she used to live there as you used to get letters for her. If that was recently the land registry may not help as it may not have been updated but it's only four quid to give it a go. In which case maybe the neighbours know her?

I dont think she did, its a new build and I am almost certain I am the first occupier. But yeah I did used to get a tonne of post for her...

Tried to contact the TRO guy again today but he wasnt in the office. Didnt think there was any point talking to anyone else about it as only he knows what was said to him and knows at all whats going on. Will try again tomorrow if my call is not returned.

RAS

You may still find that she bought it on a residential rather than buy to let mortgage and does not necessarily have permission to let.