"misrepresentation" tennancy agreement

devious1

hello all, would appreciate some input on the predicament i'm in, i signed an initial 6 month tennancy agreement to allay the fears of the landlord via his letting agent, as he had previously had tennants from hell who damaged the property and didnt pay the rent, from the very beggining we made it perfectly clear that we wanted a long term lease and would be happy to sign the initial agreement as a gesture of goodwill in the hope that it would be condusive to a long term agreement, within two weeks of moving in we were made aware that the mortgage arrears on the property was extensive, almost three months in arrears and we approached the letting agent with our concerns, he told us that he was made aware of the landlords financial difficulty and that now we have moved in and are paying regularly the arrears would be sorted, as the landlord had recently made two months payments.
however two months into the tennancy and we have found out that the landlord is in receipt of benefits and has allowed the mortgage arrears to rise month on month until repossession is now imminent. i can prove that the letting agent was aware of the financial difficulties the landlord was experiencing, i provided documentation to the letting agent proving the extent and serious nature of the arrears within two weeks of moving in. we have not had copies of the landlords insurance, or details of where/who is holding our deposit money and the letting agent has failed to repair numerous faults in the property despite constant reminders.
i served a notice 10 day ago asking for wriitn assurance that the mortgage company is aware the property is being rented out (as failure to inform the mortgage company constitutes a breach of the terms of your mortgage agreement, and as such the mortgage company would have no duty to recognise my tennancy agreement in the event of repossession)
and i asked for some reassurance that the llandlord had reached some form of satisfactory agreement with the mortgage company to cover the arrears. i have received nothing.
which leaves me and my family expecting a repossession any day.. it is my contention that this is a clear case of misrepresentation..?

anselld

If repossesion proceedings are underway you should stop focussing on the LA and protect yourself by contacting the courts and mortgage company directly to let them know your position.

If repossesion has not started you are not in a predicament (yet) and you don't really have a case to make against the LA.

Advice on repairs ... http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/repairs_and_bad_conditions/disrepair_in_rented_accommodation/repairs_in_private_lets/landlord_refusing_to_do_repairs

princeofpounds

Don't panic. Whilst you might have to move out at some stage you are likely to be in the property for several more months and unlikely to be much out of pocket at the end of the process, aside from the hassle and expense of moving (which is always a risk you take anyway).

You should receive a letter through your door if the lender takes your landlord to court. If a repossession order is made, you must attend the hearing and make the judge aware of your presence as a tenant. You can request, and are normally supposed to be given (you should reference the appropriate legislation, which we can dig up for you), 2 months notice even if the landlord didn't have permission to let.

As for the deposit, normally you would write to point out it is not protected, and then sue in small claims for the deposit and a penalty. This is not straightforward to enforce when your landlord is heading for bankruptcy. But if the worst happens, just don't pay your final month's rent.

There is no 'offence' of misrepresentation here, at least not one you are likely to be successful in prosecuting in any way, so forget that and concentrate on yourself.

More details later, but that's an outline for you.

ShAnE

If I was in your position and my landlord was just pocketing the rent, without repairing the property because he is willing to let it be repossessed then I would be considering not paying the rent at all especially if the lender is unaware that it is being rented.

What is he going to do, go through the lengthy process of evicting you, just to lose the house a month later anyway?

BottomRung

I wouldn't recommend not paying the rent as you do have use of the property until it either gets repossessed or your contract runs out. 2 wrongs don't make a right and you have signed a contract to pay the rent.

Yorkie1

BottomRung wrote: »

I wouldn't recommend not paying the rent as you do have use of the property until it either gets repossessed or your contract runs out. 2 wrongs don't make a right and you have signed a contract to pay the rent.

I agree.

The one thing that might lead me to suggest that the OP doesn't pay the final month's rent if/when they move out eventually, is the fact that there is no evidence that the LL has protected the OP's deposit.

Against a background of financial arrears, that would make me very concerned that the LL wouldn't have the funds to return the deposit irrespective of the condition of the property.

OP, check the 3 tenancy deposit schemes to check whether your deposit has been registered: TDS, DPS, mydeposits. If they haven't, then I'd focus your letters (not phone calls or emails or texts) to the LA / LL on this element rather than consent to let.

The other issue is whether repossession proceedings have already commenced. It is just possible that the notice to 'The Occupier' might have been served by the lender to the property on a date before the OP moved in. OP should write to the lender, telling them that he has recently moved in and that he is now aware that there have been arrears on the mortgage. Ask the lender that if they have commenced repossession proceedings to re-serve the notice to occupier and to keep your informed.

devious1

many thanks for your input guys, so many permutations to consider, i will contact the mortgage company to inform them of my position as a tennant. i have asked my letting agent to disclose the whereabouts of the money held in deposit, again all without response.
bottom line is i don't want to sit around waiting for the axe to fall, i'm moving out as i have every confidence that there will be an imminent repossession, if i lose my deposit then that will be unfortunate but suitable property's are few and far between where i am and having found another i intend to grab it, well aware of my obligation to pay the rent for the duration of the lease but that responsibility is unenforceable on me when the property has been reclaimed.
again though thanks

devious1

Criteria for Misrepresentation

Misrepresentation is one of several vitiating factors that can affect the validity of a contract. A misrepresentation occurs when one party makes a false statement, inducing another party to contract.
For an action to be successful, some criteria must be met in order to prove a misrepresentation. These include:

• A false statement of fact has been made,
• The statement was directed at the suing party and
• The statement had acted to induce the suing party to contract.

devious1

ill stand by my my case for misrepresentation..
1), i was lied to by the letting agent at the time of signing the lease, as he knew there were extensive arrears on the property, and as such could not justify the term of the contract when repossession was already imminent.
2). we made it quite clear that we would only sign the initial 6 month contract to allay the fears of the landlord dure to his bad experiences with the previous tennant.
3). in good faith we were lead to beleive that the property was indeed an investment property and the landlord after his bad experience was looking for a suitable reliable long term tennant, and that subject to a successful 6 month contract we could have the property as long as we wanted.

???

marliepanda

devious1 wrote: »

ill stand by my my case for misrepresentation..
1), i was lied to by the letting agent at the time of signing the lease, as he knew there were extensive arrears on the property, and as such could not justify the term of the contract when repossession was already imminent.
2). we made it quite clear that we would only sign the initial 6 month contract to allay the fears of the landlord dure to his bad experiences with the previous tennant.
3). in good faith we were lead to beleive that the property was indeed an investment property and the landlord after his bad experience was looking for a suitable reliable long term tennant, and that subject to a successful 6 month contract we could have the property as long as we wanted.

???

You MAY have something to go on for point 1. I am not sure what you mean by signing a 6 month contract to allay fears? How is that misrepresentation?

3 you have no chance on unless you have something written and agreed to which is longer than 6 months. A landlord could say you could have it forever but if theres nothing in writing it doesnt make a difference. Anything can, and has, happened. You don't have a tenancy longer than 6 months so don't have a leg to stand on in 3.

So 1, maybe. 2. Not at all sure how this relates to misrepresentation. 3. No chance.

jjlandlord

devious1 wrote: »

1), i was lied to by the letting agent at the time of signing the lease, as he knew there were extensive arrears on the property, and as such could not justify the term of the contract when repossession was already imminent.

Did you specifically ask them before signing the agreement? If not they did not lie and were not obliged to tell you. (though obviously in your place I would be pretty !!!!ed off as well).

devious1 wrote: »

2). we made it quite clear that we would only sign the initial 6 month contract to allay the fears of the landlord dure to his bad experiences with the previous tennant.

What is your point here?

devious1 wrote: »

3). in good faith we were lead to beleive that the property was indeed an investment property and the landlord after his bad experience was looking for a suitable reliable long term tennant, and that subject to a successful 6 month contract we could have the property as long as we wanted.

Again, what's your point?
Any reasonable landlord will want tenants to stay as long as possible, but may be cautious and not want to be bound for a long fixed term at first. Quite reasonable and standard.

In addition if you try to claim misrepresentation to invalidate the contract, it can be argue that you are actually better off with a 6 month fixed term than if you had signed up for 12 months or more.

Also, it's 'tenant'.