Landlord sells property and wants us out

tbs624

thequant wrote: »

If your LL is overseas, you do know it is your statutory duty to withhold tax from his rent or other wise you are complicit in helping someone to tax evade ?

It would perhaps be more helpful to give the OP ( and other thread readers) the full picture re the Non Resident LL Scheme rather than simply suggesting that s/he may be (unwittingly) assisting the LL with a spot of tax evasion.

1. OP has not said whether LL is definitely abroad
2. OP has not said that s/he pays the rent direct to the LL (and if s/he does then LL may well have registered for the Scheme and be responsible for tax due on the rent)*
3. There is a Letting Agent ( based in Eng or Wales, presumably) - if rent is payable via the LA then the HMRC paperwork falls to them
4. OP has not indicated the level of total rent payable ( relevant limit applies per T, regardless of whether tenancy is under J&S liability)

(Edit: *) LL may have applied to HMRC and been granted permission to receive rent with no tax deductions.

tbs624

skitler wrote: »

the contract has ended to some degree,

A contract has either ended or it hasn't - there are no degrees involved.

skitler wrote: »

the op knows the cost of moving and bares that cost on his own, and knows the risk of renting.

The OP's LLs ought to know the risks involved in trying to simultaneously sell a property whilst raking in rental payments for that same property currently legally occupied as a T's home

skitler wrote: »

stop making a song and dance and trying to up everyone elses costs.

The OP's LLs seem to have potentially "upped" their own costs, by failing to deal correctly with the OP's deposit registration/provision of the PI. It's 7 years since the introduction of the Deposit Regs - plenty of time for the most recalcitrant LLs/LAs to have got to grips with the process. (There was plenty of publicity when the 30 days time limit was clarified and each of the deposit scheme websites spell the rules out, as do local and national LL associations et al.)

skitler

tbs624 wrote: »

A contract has either ended or it hasn't - there are no degrees involved.

The OP's LLs ought to know the risks involved in trying to simultaneously sell a property whilst raking in rental payments for that same property currently legally occupied as a T's home

The OP's LLs seem to have potentially "upped" their own costs, by failing to deal correctly with the OP's deposit registration/provision of the PI. It's 7 years since the introduction of the Deposit Regs - plenty of time for the most recalcitrant LLs/LAs to have got to grips with the process. (There was plenty of publicity when the 30 days time limit was clarified and each of the deposit scheme websites spell the rules out, as do local and national LL associations et al.)

is that like a glass half full or half empty, if a contract is part way through, then its part way ended to some degree.;)


so now everyone should know the risks involved,
and as you say in another post:
4. OP has not indicated the level of total rent payable
you are assuming raking is being done, to some degree.;)


now if only all laws could be as clear cut, then perhaps they wouldn't get broken, to some degree.;)

G_M

skitler wrote: »

is that like a glass half full or half empty, if a contract is part way through, then its part way ended to some degree.;)
No. The contract is partway through. It is ongoing. It is not ended, to any degree.

now if only all laws could be as clear cut, then perhaps they wouldn't get broken, to some degree.;)

Yes, but by thair nature laws are (often) complex. Either

* because they try to account for multiple complex real=world variations in circumstances, or
* because they are drafted by humans, who sometimes do it poorly. or
* because they develop, as courts interpret them. or
* because they have developed piecemeal over many, sometimes hundreds, of years

If your LL is overseas, you do know it is your statutory duty to withhold tax from his rent or other wise you are complicit in helping someone to tax evade ?

Probobly not:

HMRC (Non Resident [= overseas] Landlord Scheme)

chris_aaaaa

This all seems to be going around in circles, the OP says they will/can leave on the date the LL requires.

The problem I assume is needing the deposit back before that date to place the deposit on a new place to live.

Fingers crossed the LL/MA will to a professional who tells them they are in trouble and they will become co-operative.

Failing that - keep the last months rent use that for a deposit and point the new LL to this thread to counter the bad reference.

The OP does at least have the certainty that if the the LL refused to return deposit they can take him to court for up to 3x the deposit as the LL seems to have confirmed in writing that the messed up serving the PI (my guess is if they had POP for the earlier lost PI they would have said so).

All the stuff about misleading adverts or tax issues is the job of the authorities, if the OP wants to cause trouble there are trading stds and the council housing enforcement team.

skitler

G_M wrote: »

No. The contract is partway through. It is ongoing. It is not ended, to any degree.

is that like a glass half full or half empty, if a contract is part way through, then its part way ended to some degree.;)

DaftyDuck

skitler wrote: »

is that like a glass half full or half empty, if a contract is part way through, then its part way ended to some degree.;)

No, it really isn't. It either is active or ended. It's not a degree of time, of size or anything like that. A contract that iss half way through, or only has a day to run, is just as valid, just as unended, as the day it started. It is in no way "part way ended" . Just so not.

skitler

DaftyDuck wrote: »

No, it really isn't. It either is active or ended. It's not a degree of time, of size or anything like that. A contract that iss half way through, or only has a day to run, is just as valid, just as unended, as the day it started. It is in no way "part way ended" . Just so not.

valid, now that's throws a new spanner in the works.
reading through the thread, it appears the contract isn't valid as its been abused by the ll and la, so the contract has ended to some degree.

Herbalus

skitler wrote: »

so the contract has ended to some degree.

No.

If contract = not valid = no valid contract = valid contract cannot be "some degree ended". Unless of course you mean "nearly some time before it's ended", which is completely meaningless on a non-valid contract. Though the OP now has a valid contract (but keep all references to the old one for future reference).

jjlandlord

This is going all over the place.

Whether the landlord is in the UK or abroad is irrelevant to nadirnwo's current issue.

Nadirnwo has a valid contract, and always had one. What the agent did only creates uncertainty as to what the terms were.
However this seems to have been resolved, and so is now irrelevant.

The situation regarding possession by the landlord and use of break clause has been described plainly.