Rental Deposit and “Notice that your home is at risk”.

jazzyb123_2

Hello All,

I am looking for a bit of advice, here is thestory. Around October 2012 me and my girlfriend started to rent our own placetogether for the first time. Two months later at the end of December wereceived a letter address to the “Occupants” titled “Notice that your home isat risk”.

The letter basically says the landlord hasn’tbeen paying the mortgage and that we could be evicted from the house. Seek advicefrom Citizens’ Advice Bureau, solicitor, yada yada….

I replied with a copy of my tenancy agreementand requested 2 months in order to find another property to live. The mortgagecompany agreed.

At this stage I had stopped rent payments andwe started to look for a new place to live. We moved out after the agreed twomonths (at the end of Feb). We have had to move to a smaller place with ahigher rent, as that is all we could find at the time.

I had paid £120 admin fees and £75 each – referencefees – totalling £270 to the letting agency. When we told them of the situationthey wanted the same again if they helped us find somewhere new. I told thempolitely to ****-off, and found somewhere myself.

We have now come to the stage where we needto sort out what to do with the deposit.

The letting agency is now asking us so signthe deposit release form so it can be returned to the land lord. Because wedidn’t pay the rent after receiving the “Notice that your home is at risk”letter (2 months).

The deposit is registered under “The DisputeService Ltd” . The letting agency says we won’t win any dispute and should notbother. They have sent me a letter with a bailiff’s appointment for the 1stof May – as proof that the landlord still owns the property at the time wemoved out. (The letter also says the house is in arrears of around £40k!!).

It is unlikely I could get anything else backfrom the landlord because they are in so much debt. (loss of earnings fromtaking days off to move, transport, reference checks, admin fees etc..)

What do you all think? Do I have any sort ofchance of getting my deposit back? What sort of terms/case should I appeal on?


Thanks in advance for your advice.

G_M

1) Please explain who now owns the property:

I replied with a copy of my tenancy agreementand requested 2 months in order to find another property to live. The mortgagecompany agreed.

The letting agency is now asking us so signthe deposit release form so it can be returned to the land lord.

2) You stopped paying rent right? So you owe it. Why would you expect to live rent-free?

franklee

Well there is a implication from the OP that it's cost them to move "loss of earnings from taking days off to move, transport, reference checks, admin fees etc.." and therefore they think they should be able to set this against rent owed?

That's the thing, the headline two months in the Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010 may be the same time as an authorised tenant gets but how the unauthorised tenant gets his ducks in a row without losing money is beyond me. The logistics are a nightmare and that's before we ask if the tenant was even entitled to give the landlord notice in the first place, he may be bound by the fixed term. Yet the new act is all about the mortgage lender granting a delay that the tenant should apply for without delay when I do not see that the lender can grant the tenant early release. Can't see how a tenant is meant to organise things especially if the landlord is refusing to let them go early or isn't communicating. I'd chuck it to arbitration and hope they're sympathetic ... but I think there is a good chance the tenant will end up out of pocket in having to move unexpectedly plus owing rent on the old place until he cold normally have served notice, especially if the repossession is staved off ... unless someone can explain what a tenant is *supposed* to do apart from making sure there was consent to let in the first place ...

Fire_Fox

You owe two months rent if you were there and did not pay it. Not sure you should have moved out mid contract either, don't think the lender had the authorisation to release you from the contract at that stage. Was that in writing?

You could try taking out a counter claim/ small claims action in the county court against the landlord for any costs associated with moving that you can demonstrate. But if they don't have any money you might win but get nothing.

Don't listen to the agents, they can't even be bothered to check their landlords have consent to lease so they aren't exactly the oracle of quality lettings! In addition they work for the landlord, they do not have your interests at heart.

franklee

Fire_Fox wrote: »

You owe two months rent if you were there and did not pay it. Not sure you should have moved out mid contract either, don't think the lender had the authorisation to release you from the contract at that stage. Was that in writing?

You could try taking out a counter claim/ small claims action in the county court against the landlord for any costs associated with moving that you can demonstrate. But if they don't have any money you might win but get nothing

Another avenue is to claim against the agent for failing to check for consent to let, there's this post where a tenant was advised they could do that ...

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=46767155&postcount=39

Also the OP would need to establish exactly what rent he owes. A tenant can leave at the end of their fixed term without having to give notice which *if* the OP's was six months from October 2012 to Feb 2013 and *if* the OP moved out in time would work in this case ... The tenant wouldn't owe rent till the bailiff’s appointment for the 1st of May. If OTOH the fixed term was say a year with no break clause the tenant seems to be stuffed as he couldn't give notice so how to work out when the tenant no longer has to pay the rent ... the judge's comment mentioned above seems sympathetic the the tenant but who knows?.

tbs624

jazzyb123 wrote: »

......I replied with a copy of my tenancy agreementand requested 2 months in order to find another property to live. The mortgagecompany agreed.

At this stage I had stopped rent payments

You should not have ceased to pay rent. Wrong though it may seem, a LL reneging on his contractual obligations does not simply give you a right to behave in a tit for tat fashion, any more than a LL is able to refuse to undertake repairs simply because a T has stopped paying the rent.

However, did the LL/LA provide you with the "prescribed information" relating to your tenancy deposit? This is more than just confirmation that your deposit has been registered

If you weren't given the info you would be able to pursue this matter to court and the LL would be ordered to pay you between 1 and 3 times the deposit equivalent. Obviously as he seems to be financially incontinent you would be unlikely to be able to obtain an enforcement of any judgement other than at stupid £ per month dribbles but it may give you some bargaining power.

On the failure of the Fixed Term you can pursue LL/LA to court for breach of contract, as Franklee's posts have suggested but, likewise, LL can pursue you for unpaid rent.

tim123456789

tbs624 wrote: »

You should not have ceased to pay rent. .

I disagree

A LL who is going to be reposessed is very likely not to have your deposit to give back to you. It's all very well having a theoretical right to sue him, but you can't get blood out of a stone.

Making sure that he doesn't actually owe you anything when you do move out, is the prudent decision here.

Fire_Fox

tim123456789 wrote: »

I disagree

A LL who is going to be reposessed is very likely not to have your deposit to give back to you. It's all very well having a theoretical right to sue him, but you can't get blood out of a stone.

Making sure that he doesn't actually owe you anything when you do move out, is the prudent decision here.

It's simplicity itself to check if the deposit has been lodged with one of the three schemes, in this case it has so there is no worry about the landlord not having the deposit.

Where there is CTL or a BTL mortgage - perhaps not in this case - the lender becomes the landlord and they become liable for ensuring the deposit is returned at the end of the tenancy.

thesaint

You had a fixed term, you owe rent until at least the end of that which if it was for 6 months from Oct 2012 would have expired in April 2013.

You need to acsertain at what date did the lender become your landlord(if at all).

If they sent a speculative letter and you fell for it, then the landlord has a justifiable right to be paid for rent up to the end of the fixed term.

You weren't forced to move immediately, so claiming for moving costs, day off work etc is unlikely to get far.

tbs624

tim123456789 wrote: »

I disagree

That's any poster's personal prerogative but if you are giving reasons then those should stand up. In this case yours don't.

tim123456789 wrote: »

A LL who is going to be reposessed is very likely not to have your deposit to give back to you. It's all very well having a theoretical right to sue him, but you can't get blood out of a stone.

Tis the LLs property which would be subject to repossession not the LL himself. I have already made reference to the difficulties in getting enforcement if the person you are pursuing does not have the funds with which to meet a judgement against them. However ( as Fire Fox has already said) in the OP's case, they have stated that the tenancy deposit *has been registered with TDS*, which is an insurance backed scheme.

tim123456789 wrote: »

Making sure that he doesn't actually owe you anything when you do move out, is the prudent decision here.

As the departing T, not leaving yourself open to a potential action for recovery of unpaid rent is a good idea

tim123456789

tbs624 wrote: »

As the departing T, not leaving yourself open to a potential action for recovery of unpaid rent is a good idea

I made no suggestiion that you should do this.

You just balance up what rent owed against the deposit and pay the rest, job done