Landlord in receivership and letter of determination

adviceonrental88

Hello. I am new here.

So my landlord went bankrupt in May and a receiver turned up. Turns out we had never met the landlord and the man we had been dealing with for our rents was running his own company contracted by the real landlord to manage the property.

The house we reside in is on three floors. Each floor has a locked door. Then each room (some with showers in) are locked doors too. So for example I live on second floor. I cannot gain access to third floor or the first floor.

Our "landlord" was very difficult. Taking money off vulnerable tenants even when the property was in receivership etc and he had no legal right to collect rent. Fortunately I did not give him anymore money after the receivers letter said do not pay rent until further notice. He delayed the receiver changing all the locks and he moved stuff out of some peoples rooms without giving them notice. He was a nightmare.

The receiver was thinking of getting an injuction out against our old landlord. Our old landlord would lie to us and say they will evict you pay me the rent etc. (Which yes may be the case of course they will evict us eventually but he had no legal right to ask for anymore rent and even if it was paid to him there is nothing he could do to stop the eviction process. The bank/receiver owns the property now not him).

The receiver issued a letter of determination on the 10th July giving us four weeks to evict and stated if we do not leave then they will issue court proceedings.

So I informed Shelter and also spoke to free legal aid lawyer who said (this process probably will take another three months before you have to leave) on the 15th July.

Both Shelter and the solicitor said that the letter of determination is invalid. In that we are not licensees but assured short hold tenants. In that we have locked indiividual rooms and we do not move around rooms etc as with a license arrangement such as a hotel.

They informed me to write to the receiver and state that we are AST's and therefore they must issue us with a two month section 21 and as they are now our landlords if they want to evict us we are entitled to our deposits back.

We paid monthly and most people paid cash. Our landlord did not put our deposits in a government backed scheme. At the time when I moved in on September 2012 he said that will act as my last months rent. So for example if I wanted to move out I would have to use the one months rental deposit and stay for one month to use it as he would not refund it. (I knew this was not good practice when I moved in but London is London and going through an estate agent is not always an option), The solicitor and shelter said that therefore because it was not in a government backed scheme the new landlords our receivers would need to pay it to us back. Once all the creditors had been paid off from the eventual sale of the property and if there was enough money left.)

I informed both Shelter and the solicitor that our tenancy documents were not the best and that it turns out our "landlord" was probably shadier than we thought. They both said that whilst that does not help our case it does not make a lot of difference. In that in it's very nature we are AST's and not licensees.

The property is also not registered as a housing of multiple occupancy HMO but as a nursery and care home. This is the reason why the receiver said they must now issue eviction proceedings against us.

After speaking for four hours to both Shelter and the solicitor I felt a lot more secure. As far I was concearned I will have another few months in the property by the time they go to court, section 21, judges 14 days eviciton notice and then the time it takes to apply for bailiffs etc and as mentioned this is what the solicitor said.

However one of my flat mates who has been in contact a lot with the receivers is now being very short tempered with me. (I came home in a different part of the country for a few weeks for personal reasons so speak to him via telephone).

He keeps saying to me the issue is very complex but then hanging up on me etc. I do not understand why he is being like this and why it is so complex to him?

As I understand it from specialist advice I sought it will go like this. We inform the receiver we are ast's and not licensee's. They will either accept this and issue a section 21 giving us two months notice. Or deny our request and go to court. Based on our circumstances it would seem highly unlikely a court would agree with the receiver that we are licensee's and not assured short hold tenants.

So worst case scenario is on the 10th August they apply for court proceedings (which can take 4 weeks) unless they have already applied for it. The judge agrees and gives us the standard 14 days. Then another few weeks after that for the Bailiffs.

Best case scenario. They either accept the section 21 two month notice on the 10th August or go to court and the court says we have the legal right for a section 21 which would be two months + the time it took for the court to hear our and the receivers case and then + the 14 day court eviction after the 2 months section 21 had expired.

This is what was said to me by Shelter and a solicitor and also by a lot of landlords I have spoken to on various other forums.

So why is my flatmate suddenly being very difficult with me? Asking to call me and then when I start and talk about our situation he hangs up and says its complex without elaborating. He is worrying about the HMO status and wants to write to the council about it.

I do not think this is a good idea. It is not our problem or obligation to inform the council of the HMO' status and I worry by informing them they may make the situation worse for us the tenants. I was not told by Shelter or the solicitor to start writing to the council etc about the HMO status etc. I am worried he will make a mess of things and make our situation worse and decrease the amount of time we can stay in the property.

Your thoughts and advice would be fantastic. As I know from past experience even when you talk to "experts" sometimes for some reason they can give the wrong or bad advice.

thesaint

Listen to Shelter and your solicitor is my advice.

Angelicdevil

A section 21 notice will not be valid as the deposit has not been protected nor returned to you.

adviceonrental88

Angelicdevil wrote: »

A section 21 notice will not be valid as the deposit has not been protected nor returned to you.

Yes I forgot to mention that. However as mentioned it seems there is no way a court could consider us licensee's and not ast's (even though we do not pay rent anymore but this is because the receiver has not asked for rent)

So therefore should I feel secure? Will the receiver have to pay the deposits before they can issue a section 21 or is there a different legal avenue they will take that will mean we will be evicted a lot sooner?

Or are we not eligible for a section 21 because are landlord was shady and did not protect it through a government backed scheme? Does this put us in a better or worse position?

BitterAndTwisted

What proof do you have that you paid the landlord a deposit?

adviceonrental88

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

What proof do you have that you paid the landlord a deposit?

A hand written letter from my landlord with his signature on and mine. Stating the amount I give and the one month upfront/deposit of 780

When I first moved in I was wary handing over so much money so I recorded him on my phone. Sadly my phone got wiped so I do not have that video evidence and taped conversation with him anymore unless I saved it to an external hard drive. Of course the video evidence may have not been any good anyway.

G_M

* You have a receipt for a deposit paid. The deposit is not registered. So the S21 is not valid.

* for more on your rights, read:

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

This applies with Receivership too.

[Deleted User]

As I understand it from advice given on here before, a S21 cannot be valid until the deposit (which the OP has proof of being paid) has been returned.

Whether the receiver will pay this deposit to enable a S21 to be issued is another matter. The landlord's agent took the deposit, not the receiver and I would assume the receiver returning the deposit from money that he may or may not have from the Landlord's/Landlord's Agents dealings is going to be complicated. The deposit paid to the Landlord is a 'debt' of the landlord but I have no idea what priority the receiver should give it (i.e. whether other debts need to be paid before the deposit is refunded). To make matters even more complicated, it was paid to the Landlord's agent.., so there may be another area requiring investigation (did the money go to the landlord, what did the agent do with it all, blah blah). Nothing to do with the OP of course, but I have no idea what investigations the receiver will do, but expect him to be more concerned over repaying debts/getting hold of all money owed the Landlord rather than investigating the correct legal position of the OP.

Of course, some of the tenants will have proof of a deposit being paid, others won't so they will be dealt with differently as far as this is concerned. All need to check and double check their legal rights in this situation.

How this will affect the eviction of the OP I couldn't begin to guess. Logically, without a S21, the OP can't be evicted (as long as he doesn't go into rent arrears) but lol.., the law is not always logical.