We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Landlord in Arrears
Comments
-
So does a court ever say to a lender, "tenant had AST and landlord had BTL mortgage, therefore lender was aware property was let and so lender has to respect tenants rights under AST and can't evict"?
Or does the AST give no protection to a tenant from a lender repossessing?
So far in our experiences at court the AST means nothing and the judge still grants the possession order.0 -
Absolutely no. This was argued last time this was posted. I made the point this way: Judge says mortgage holder gets possession under the law. Just because someone has an AST or any other agreement, isn't going to override the judge's decision......So does a court ever say to a lender, "tenant had AST and landlord had BTL mortgage, therefore lender was aware property was let and so lender has to respect tenants rights under AST and can't evict"?
Yes, see above.Or does the AST give no protection to a tenant from a lender repossessing?A house isn't a home without a cat.
Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others.
I have writer's block - I can't begin to tell you about it.
You told me again you preferred handsome men but for me you would make an exception.
It's a recession when your neighbour loses his job; it's a depression when you lose yours.0 -
So far in our experiences at court the AST means nothing and the judge still grants the possession order.
Thanks for that, I have argued this in the past where people have suggested tenants "shop" landlords to the lender, because they thought the tenants were unprotected as the mortgage wasn't BTL.Bobproperty wrote:Absolutely no. This was argued last time this was posted. I made the point this way: Judge says mortgage holder gets possession under the law. Just because someone has an AST or any other agreement, isn't going to override the judge's decision.
Must have been away that day!
Tenant could then sue landlord for breach of AST I guess, but a landlord with major arrears is unlikely to be worth suing!I'm a Forum Ambassador on the housing, mortgages & student money saving boards. I volunteer to help get your forum questions answered and keep the forum running smoothly. Forum Ambassadors are not moderators and don't read every post. If you spot an illegal or inappropriate post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com (it's not part of my role to deal with this). Any views are mine and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.com.0 -
Previous discussion: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=341547A house isn't a home without a cat.
Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others.
I have writer's block - I can't begin to tell you about it.
You told me again you preferred handsome men but for me you would make an exception.
It's a recession when your neighbour loses his job; it's a depression when you lose yours.0 -
dont know if you are in a possision to buy or even want to in the current climate but a landlord in serious financial trouble and a property they cant sell till your contract is up might be an opertunity to lowball them and cat yourself a place on the cheap.
anyone who says thats unethical can bite me, the landlord was quite happy to make money of the ops, why shouldnt op take advantage of them.
Look up how much the LL paid for it (free on rightmove.co.uk and loads of other places) then offer him/her that for it for a quick sale. If you're feeling a bit cheeky then offer 5% less!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards