LandLord Sold Garden Which Was Under Tenancy

adrihd

Land Registry Update:

I've heard back from the land registry, Land Reg (above) kindly had a peer at the Titles and it appears that both the building AND garden appear under the same title. When I get my laptop back, I'll download the Land Reg documents and upload them somewhere (edited to remove personal details) so you can all look at them.

anselld

adrihd wrote: »

The solicitor I've spoken to so far (30 min free consult) said this looks like 'constructive eviction'.

They will evict you at the end of your term via a S21, which is a "no fault" process. How could it possibly amount to any form of illegal eviction assuming they follow up the S21 process correctly?

You free solicitor is blowing smoke where the sun doesn't shine IMHO.

anselld

adrihd wrote: »

The only confirmation I asked of them was that of what they said about the S.21 being conditional. I never asked for the contents of the meeting to be discussed.

S21 is always effectively conditional in practice. It is notification of intent to seek possession. It is up to the LL to decide if they actually will seek possession once the notice period completes.

adrihd

I'm not speaking to the solicitor about the S.21, I'm speaking to them about the behaviour of both the LL and the Letting Agent. After this I'll post the findings of the land registry...

adrihd

Here is an edited (removed personal information) copy of what Land Reg. (see above) has managed to find out:

Dear adrihd
I have had a quick look at our records for the address/title and I suspect that there is very little I can add to what you already know and/or the paperwork already obtained from us.
The address is registered as a Freehold title under xxxxxxx. Although the addresses 123A, B etc are recorded on the address database we have access to I assume the leases or agreements in place are for short terms i.e. less than 7 years as they are not noted on the freehold title or registered separately.
The freehold title includes the main building and garden ground under the one title. If the garden ground has been sold off then that has yet to be registered with us. If the sale happened recently then that would not be unusual.
Other posters on MSE have referred to the possibility that your own agreement/contract would relate directly to a lease of 140B i.e. there would be a freehold, a lease to someone who has then let it to you in some way. If that is the case then their lease is not registered as already mentioned..

As a result if you have a copy of the freehold title register and plan then that is all the information we hold for the property. In the circumstances there is nothing further I can add but I am sure your solicitor will be able to advise on a way forward based on the additional information you have.

I shall not post on MSE re your thread but it may help others to understand the situation better if you were able to post that only the freehold is registered and none of the flats are registered separately.

Whilst the information does not reveal anything specifically helpful to your current situation it should at least enable you and your solicitor to focus on the agreement/contract you have rather than the land register.
Regards

Land Reg rep

Any comments? From what I can see, the garden is part of the property (building) and in accordance with the Housing Act (and my tenancy) the garden is part of the tenancy.

The part I'm referring to is:

2 Letting of a dwelling-house together with other land.

(1)If, under a tenancy, a dwelling-house is let together with other land, then, for the purposes of this Part of this Act,—
(a)if and so long as the main purpose of the letting is the provision of a home for the tenant or, where there are joint tenants, at least one of them, the other land shall be treated as part of the dwelling-house; and
(b)if and so long as the main purpose of the letting is not as mentioned in paragraph (a) above, the tenancy shall be treated as not being one under which a dwelling-house is let as a separate dwelling.
(2)Nothing in subsection (1) above affects any question whether a tenancy is precluded from being an assured tenancy by virtue of any provision of Schedule 1 to this Act.

moneyistooshorttomention

DRP wrote: »

You should have written to them confirming what was said in the meeting. Clearly if you take this further, you must repsond to clarify in some way

They were only appearing to be at all on your side. Unfortunately, these things happen and, at some point in our life, many people have some occasion or other to realise that the "minutes of a meeting" may well be "twisted", rather than being a totally objective/truthful account of a meeting. He who pays the piper and all that...and this piper is being paid by the landlady and will therefore lie as required by her.

I think the only thing you can do there is to learn that lesson for future reference, as this probably isn't the only time in your life that will happen to you.

Few people realise that "twisting" is being attempted in time to prevent it. Most people only realise "minutes of a meeting" are often not the objective account they are supposed to be until afterwards.

I think you will probably just have to decide to "move on" regarding that, rather than disputing their lies.

Probably the only thing you can constructively do now is to try and find your plants and, if you do find them, then deal with your property as you see fit (but proving it is indeed your property could be another matter if you are unable to prove they are yours and you are therefore entitled to do whatever you please with them).

hm71_2

good morning sorry be popping in & outvif this thread. I am a private renter and to be honest if i had responded as you have i would expect to be issued an s.21.
have you considered that the landlord may have money issues and may have to sell the land.
also i appreciate that you worked on the garden out of your own sweat and costs but i also di that but accept that i may have to move at some point.
i think the best thing you can do is look for a new place and if in future you do work either discuss it with your landlord beforehand in relation to costs or accept that eventually you may have to leave.

DaftyDuck

If you are simply out to create mischief and costs for your LL, then go ahead. You might write back to the LA saying that their written record does not appear to match the 'recorded transcript you made on your iPhone, nor the conversation you recorded with the builder', and would they care to amend it at this stage, or later in court. You can carry on in this vein and possibly have more entertainment. ... .......

It might end up with them enjoying it more than you do.

I still don't believe there is any clarity to whether the garden, or indeed the whole garden, was to be part of the agreement. I think the LL will be able to line up statements from the LA, the builder, and quite possibly the remaining (nervous) residents to back him up. Your solicitor will walk away much the richer, and you will be broke in more ways than financially.

Stop, move on, move out, save stress, save money. Settle for a moral victory.

Cornucopia

adrihd wrote: »

Here is an edited (removed personal information) copy of what Land Reg. (see above) has managed to find out:

Any comments? From what I can see, the garden is part of the property (building) and in accordance with the Housing Act (and my tenancy) the garden is part of the tenancy.

The part I'm referring to is:

IMHO it doesn't help either way. You are not renting the entire building, so the fact that the garden is part of that LR entry is not relevant.

moneyistooshorttomention

At a practical level, I would imagine it "might" be the case that your landlady was able to "grab" and sell part of your garden for a bit higher price than she would otherwise have been able to because you had made it look so much nicer.

The point I made before that maybe a developer was better able to see the potential of this garden as a development site because it had been turned into a decent garden (rather than being a tatty neglected piece of land) and might therefore have given your landlady a better price for the land than he otherwise would have in other words.

That IS only a "might". It is only a "might" that you would have a chance to prove to a Small Claims Court that you had raised the value of the land because of your work on it and should therefore be entitled to some of that "added value".

You are obviously intelligent enough to take a claim to a small claims court yourself. Chances are your landlady "might" realise you are intelligent and therefore prefer not to come up against you on that and settle the claim on the door of the court. But it's surprising just how often someone who isn't that bright themselves underestimates the intelligence level of someone else....so it could go all the way into a small claims court hearing.

The thing is: how much would it cost to bring a claim that way these days? I honestly don't know the answer to that or whether you have the money to take the risk you might fail. I'm assuming the likely cost is around the £100 mark. You would need to check the likelihood of her sending in a solicitor against you (don't know how possible this is in that level of court) and, if you lost, could she get you to cover the fees for her solicitor?

It's up to you to try and objectively calculate whether you could gain evidence of having added value to the land and what the odds are that your landlady has got the measure of you and therefore decides its not worth a fight and will pay up on the door for any "added value" you have unwittingly given her.

Up to you to find out the facts on that and then calculate the odds and work out how well (or otherwise) your landlady has got the "measure of you" and whether you've got the measure of her well enough to see whether she's more intelligent than you are and could beat you...