LandLord Sold Garden Which Was Under Tenancy

Cornucopia

It's probably the easiest/cheapest way to resolve the matter. But I don't see the OP winning - unless the LL doesn't contest it.

adrihd

I;m planning a stand, despite the S.21 I received. Any money received will be shared equally between all 4 of the tenants. So It's clearly not a money thing I'm out for. Every one of the other 3 tenants ''came out of their shell' as to put it, and over the years, I've coaxed shy people to become a community.

What the LL did smashed that in a second. All of the hard work I did was immediately redundant.

I've spoken to the Letting Agent =, which obviously take the side fo the LL due to their monthly fee's, and there's no joy there.

I've spoekn `to all the other tenants and theey're happy to gang up with me 'anonymously'. So at the best I can get a signature.

Furthermore, thanks sto Lan Reg's investigations and as far as what I can see on the titles and title plan, this is ONE property. Rather than split up inot A,B, D, C AND the garden...

As per the housing act 1998, any land which comes with a 'dwelling house' is rearded part of that 'dwelling house'.

The question is, is how do I dispute this? I know how to make a small claims, but how do I take something like this to court for a judge to decide?

adrihd

I'm not sure what the civil process is to have something like this questioned. Any pointers would be handy

lincroft1710

adrihd wrote: »

Furthermore, thanks sto Lan Reg's investigations and as far as what I can see on the titles and title plan, this is ONE property. Rather than split up inot A,B, D, C AND the garden...

As per the housing act 1998, any land which comes with a 'dwelling house' is rearded part of that 'dwelling house'.

But there isn't a "dwelling house", there is a building divided into 4 dwellings (flats). That building is owned by your landlady. Unless she is intending to sell off the flats individually, there is no need to create separate titles for each flat.

neas

I remember reading this thread a month or so ago but forgotten the jist of it.

So in summary theres a house seperated into 4 flats which had some land... you cleaned it up and everyone uses it it, very nice for everyone involved. Landlord then sells some of the land remaining and you and the other 3 tenants are notionally out of pocket as you rented a house plus share of garden? Is this right?



I used to own and relocated so rented for 11 months (just buying now in new area)... I and many other renters know its not your flat, not your house its only temporarily rented so spending your own time/effort to make the house better usually gets taken advantage of by the landlord..... ironically you made the garden more appealing and therefore easier to sell.... A lesson for anyone else renting I think.

What will you sue the landlord for? WHat loss have you incurred a reduction in rent maybe? I.e. £50 a month? Ultimately the landlord will get rid of you from the house via the s21 route thats for sure.

lincroft1710

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

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.

Before any claim can be made to Money Claim On Line, there has to be evidence of a debt first.

So OP has first got to find how much the developer paid for the land, then decide by what percentage his work increased the land's value. He then has to send his LL an invoice and wait to see if she replies. If he receives no reply after say 28 days or a denial of his work increasing the land's value, he then has to issue a Letter Before Action and if still no satisfaction only then can he apply to MCOL.

I forgot to add that it is extremely unlikely OP will find the subsequent judgement in his favour

HarryBarry

Hold on, are people saying that the OP is entitled to some money because he decided to improve the garden therefore increasing the value?

How does that work then? Unless there was an agreement upfront, then from what I've read in the past there is no chance of claiming anything. If there was a claim, i don't see it being anything significant at all.

As for the rest of, the words more hassle than its worth spring to mind. FAR more hassle in fact. You get a lot of these threads on here, people assuming landlord or tenant putting a foot wrong is going to equal thousands in compensation. You'll make the lawyers rich, that's about it.

Cornucopia

This claim almost certainly has nowhere to go.

The increase in value of land that will be built on, by being neatly gardened first has to be marginal at best.

And even if there was an increase in value, the OP is not entitled to a share of it.

It's a simple principle for this and any similar cases: when you rent, you acquire the right to USE a property, and very little more. If you want a financial interest, you need to buy.

Thrugelmir

Cornucopia wrote: »

The increase in value of land that will be built on, by being neatly gardened first has to be marginal at best.

No value has been added to the land.

franklee

neas wrote: »

I and many other renters know its not your flat, not your house.

Actually it is for the duration of the tenancy.

Urban Myth – when a landlord lets a property, its still his
http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2010/08/31/urban-myth-when-a-landlord-lets-a-property-its-still-his/

If the garden was part of the tenancy then it's the tenant's garden for the duration of the tenancy and the builder is building on the tenant's land.

Given the correspondence the the OP had about planting the garden and given the tenancy agreement didn't specify the garden was excluded I do not see how everyone is so sure the garden isn't the tenant's.

That said I've no idea what redress if any there would be for having the garden taken away.