Repossession threat - not our fault!

greenchicken

Hi, hope someone can advise!

My partner and I rent a flat from a property management company. They have generally been a bit useless, don't answer the phone, take ages to do anything etc.

This week we received a letter addressed to the Occupier which was from Bank of Scotland. It's essentially a reposession notice, saying that due to missed mortgage payments a reposession has been arranged and we will be told the date shortly. It says we need to empty the property by that date. I remembered that we have been receiving a monthly letter from BoS addressed to someone who I assume is the home owner, and we have always forwarded this to the letting agent or sent it back to the sender address - I realise now these were probably warnings and payment demands that have been ignored.

I spoke to the Bank of Scotland and they sympathised but said they can't discuss with me. I spoke to the property management company who insisted the mortgage has been paid and will sort it out. I don't really trust they understand how worrying this is to us.

I am really worried there is nothing we can do here and that some bailiffs are going to turn up. We live in a big block of flats with a doorman who can stop people getting in, but more often than not people can easily get in behind someone else. We even know of someone who managed to blag a key off the doorman once, so it wouldn't surprise me if some bailiffs managed this.

What do you think we should do?

Thanks everyone

dotdash79

You might be able to stay in the house, with the bank becoming your landlord. You need to act fast.

Shelter have excellent advice it would be wise to follow it.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/repossession/repossession_by_a_landlords_lender

Werdnal

What does the document you have received actually say? It is normal for there to be "feeler" letters sent to the occupier before a repo actually goes through, to find out who is living there and what status they have, ie tenant etc.

Have you received any of these? A repo normally requires a hearing, which you wouldhave been entitled to attend and state your case, buying a little more time to find somewhere else.

If you have received the date by which you need to be out, you may have missed previous letters, but are you sure this is not a date for the hearing instead?

greenchicken

here's what it says... http://postimg.org/image/5teim66pl/

greenchicken

Spoke to another massively unhelpful person at BoS! Grrrr

hazyjo

A similar current thread running which might be of some help: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4579615

Bailiffs can't take your stuff. Was the flat furnished? Not sure where you stand in that case - I expect it's classed as yours during your tenancy, but hopefully someone else can confirm.

Jx

[Deleted User]

To the occupier implies that the bank is aware that the occupier is not the owner which means they are providing a buy to let mortgage, meaning the owner (your landlord) has permission to let. This bodes well for you, although doesn't mean you're out of the woods.

You can find lots of information from shelter here: http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/repossession/repossession_by_a_landlords_lender

I was in the same position a couple of years ago (landlord didn't pay mortgage) however in my case he didn't have permission to let. Eventually (when repossession was being considered by the bank) he paid up his arrears and arranged to continue the mortgage payments. If the agents have said the issue is settled that may well be true (as it was in my case).

G_M

citricsquid wrote: »

To the occupier implies that the bank is aware that the occupier is not the owner which means they are providing a buy to let mortgage, meaning the owner (your landlord) has permission to let. This bodes well for you, although doesn't mean you're out of the woods.

I'm afraid this is not the case.

The bank writes to "The Occupier" as a matter of course before commencing repossession proceedings.

This is to ensure that whoever is living at the property to be repossessed, whether the owner, a tenant, or indeed an 'Excluded Occupier", is made aware of the proceedings.

You cannot assume there is a BTL mortgage. Though of course there may be.

Hence the importance of writing to the bank:

See
Repossession (What happens if a landlord's mortgage lender repossesses the property?)

princeofpounds

To the occupier implies that the bank is aware that the occupier is not the owner which means they are providing a buy to let mortgage, meaning the owner (your landlord) has permission to let. This bodes well for you, although doesn't mean you're out of the woods.

Unfortunately that's not the case. Letters are routinely sent warning occupiers of impending repossession, even if not permitted. This is because banks and courts are well aware that property owners often rent out property they shouldn't.

The fact that letters were sent to the mortgage holder at the address in the first place implies it is not a BTL mortgage.

Unfortunately the language in the letter is (deliberately?) vague on whether the possession order has actually been made yet.

OP, the most useful thing you can do is to ask both parties if the possession order has been made or not by a court, and if they can direct you to a case number or other reference you can follow up with the court. What you do depends to an extent on this.

The letter seems to imply a possession order has been made, but normally the occupier would have been sent letters from both bank and court already before the case if that were the situation.

You should probably hold back your rent too, just in case your LL isn't your LL any more. Until you find the truth out.

[Deleted User]

I see, my bad. In my case the bank letters were addressed to the owner, in which case I must have misremembered and I didn't receive the same letters the OP has.