Letting agent won't give me the landlord's details

jekyll79

Thanks for the replies, unfortunately this case is not as simple as going to the freeholder or the maintenance company. I shall explain....

I, along with about 4 others, purchased from a builder who was the freeholder. We did everything properly and cut no corners. This took place in 2013. After I moved in, I discovered structural issues that had not been revealed by the survey. This apparently was not the surveyors fault because they "do not lift up floor boards". My local borough council had signed the property off with problems. It became quite clear. However, they are not required to be perfect apparently, they are simply there to assess whether it is dangerous or not.

The builder then went bankrupt. He had also built against planning permission. The local council insisted that a section of the building be knocked down. There was no freeholder to do this. Then a liquidator stepped in. They paid someone to take a sledgehammer to the offending structure and it is still in an untidy demolished state almost a year on.

The liquidator then informed all of us that our solicitors had neglected to realise that a bankruptcy petition had been raised against the builder before we had each completed (over a period of maybe 6 months). This rendered all of our sales void. I thought, "Right, I will walk away then". Oh no, in this situation I had to either spend out thousands to keep my asset or get "pennies in the pound" back as an unsecured creditor.

So, I have just finished paying a fortune to solicitors to fix that for me and recently had the property signed over to me. I have managed to claim a chunk of that back from the original conveyancing solicitors. But now I am left in a situation where there is no freeholder yet, no maintenance company (and never has been even though I bought the place with that as a pre-req in the contract) and this tenant has just caused havoc. This is just another issue that I am trying to resolve, but this time without handing over cash to a legal system that only seems to protect those with money.

This information doesn't necessarily help you help me and I think I am left with no options (or underhand options). I just hope this explanation warns people of the dangers of buying property. The least protected entity in the whole arrangement is the buyer. Myself and the other buyers (all first time buyers) did everything by the book. We were not protected by our conveyancers (all different), the local council failed to recognise major defects in the property and still signed it off (there are no repercussions for them....we've looked into this), the builder has been made bankrupt and is probably starting again somewhere else, the liquidator has not bothered at all to protect the freehold (I even had to push them to renew insurance for the building) and the letting agency who were well aware of the issues caused by this rogue tenant have just walked away leaving the damage.

That is the state of play for first time buyers in this Tory "buy a new build" age. Oh and I live in a Tory council. But I guess these are first world problems.....

Guest101

jekyll79 wrote: »

Hi, I bought a property a year and a half ago and over the last year have had to put up with a terrible neighbour who was renting. The property is in a new block of flats and this tenant has made the communal areas look atrocious. There is damage to plaster boards, stains on the walls from feet, blood, coffee, cigarette ends all over the place, damage to fixtures and fittings, etc. The letting agent has got rid of the tenant, but even though I constantly spoke to them about this, they have done nothing to rectify the issues. I spoke to them today and had a row with them and they told me it was not their responsibility and they would pass my complaints on to the owner. I said that I did not want that to happen as why would the owner contact me back. I asked for the owner's details. The letting agent refused.

Now I have been speaking to this agent for a long time. They were well aware of the issues (they even turned up to a fire started by the tenant) but have made no effort to use the tenant's deposit to fix any of the issues. I suspect that any deposit that may have been held back was used to rectify issues inside the flat that was rented.

Do I have any rights to get the owner's details? If not, is there anything I can do? The new tenant has not caused any major issues yet, but from what I have seen it is only a matter of time. I suspect that this letting agent is making the most of taking money from the local council to house individuals who are unable to house themselves. I bought this property brand new, with the expectation that other civilised owners would be living there, NOT uncivilised trouble makers just because it brings in regular cash from the council.

Any advice?

No you have no rights to their details.

Now u can get their name from land registry at £3. And investigate yourself. But the agent is not obliged to give u any details.

The managing agent can require payment from the leaseholder to rectify any damage.

Guest101

jekyll79 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies, unfortunately this case is not as simple as going to the freeholder or the maintenance company. I shall explain....

I, along with about 4 others, purchased from a builder who was the freeholder. We did everything properly and cut no corners. This took place in 2013. After I moved in, I discovered structural issues that had not been revealed by the survey. This apparently was not the surveyors fault because they "do not lift up floor boards". My local borough council had signed the property off with problems. It became quite clear. However, they are not required to be perfect apparently, they are simply there to assess whether it is dangerous or not.

The builder then went bankrupt. He had also built against planning permission. The local council insisted that a section of the building be knocked down. There was no freeholder to do this. Then a liquidator stepped in. They paid someone to take a sledgehammer to the offending structure and it is still in an untidy demolished state almost a year on.

The liquidator then informed all of us that our solicitors had neglected to realise that a bankruptcy petition had been raised against the builder before we had each completed (over a period of maybe 6 months). This rendered all of our sales void. I thought, "Right, I will walk away then". Oh no, in this situation I had to either spend out thousands to keep my asset or get "pennies in the pound" back as an unsecured creditor.

So, I have just finished paying a fortune to solicitors to fix that for me and recently had the property signed over to me. I have managed to claim a chunk of that back from the original conveyancing solicitors. But now I am left in a situation where there is no freeholder yet, no maintenance company (and never has been even though I bought the place with that as a pre-req in the contract) and this tenant has just caused havoc. This is just another issue that I am trying to resolve, but this time without handing over cash to a legal system that only seems to protect those with money.

This information doesn't necessarily help you help me and I think I am left with no options (or underhand options). I just hope this explanation warns people of the dangers of buying property. The least protected entity in the whole arrangement is the buyer. Myself and the other buyers (all first time buyers) did everything by the book. We were not protected by our conveyancers (all different), the local council failed to recognise major defects in the property and still signed it off (there are no repercussions for them....we've looked into this), the builder has been made bankrupt and is probably starting again somewhere else, the liquidator has not bothered at all to protect the freehold (I even had to push them to renew insurance for the building) and the letting agency who were well aware of the issues caused by this rogue tenant have just walked away leaving the damage.

That is the state of play for first time buyers in this Tory "buy a new build" age. Oh and I live in a Tory council. But I guess these are first world problems.....

The liquidators and administrators are now the freeholders.

The only person you have a claim against is your original solicitor, who owed you a damn sight more than a portion of the costs, more fool you for accepting this pay off.

jekyll79

Actually, I think you have a lot to learn about the legal system. There are absolutely no guarantees of recouping when you take an action against somebody. In this case, the conveyancing solicitor technically carried out all that was needed by the law. Did they do a thorough job? That is a question that may have been answered in my favour in an expensive case involving expensive barristers. However, I do not have £10,000+ to risk on that.

Due to a loophole in the law, there is actually no requirement for a liquidation petition to be advertised in a central location. This is only a requirement once it has been verified by a court. The petition in question was raised about 2 weeks before I completed. Due to this, it could very likely be argued that the conveyancing solicitor actually did no wrong, they simply didn't go "above and beyond" the call of the duty. Or it may have been found that even though legally they did the required minimum, they should have still endeavoured to cover all bases. This basically would rely on a judgement call.

Not having the money to risk a further £10,000.00 fighting, when you have been offered a settlement which doesn't quite cover everything is not "foolish". Had I fought it and lost, I would have been out of pocket a lot more than the £10,000.00+ it would have cost me to fight it.

Thanks for your input, but you are clearly working from a "what you think is right" rulebook rather than the real world rule book. That one, as has been revealed to me over the last year, differs depending on how much money you have behind you. As I am a normal individual without thousands to risk on fighting a large legal company, I was advised to cut my losses and accept the offer.

The liquidator is also under no obligation to even speak to us....as has been proven to us. I am sure we could take them to court as well, but unfortunately it costs a lot of money that none of have to risk. You see in this world, the law only works for those who can afford to pay for it to work for them.

We can all be brave on the faceless internet where we don't have to prove anything, but when you have no safety net (no bank of mum and dad going on here), no guarantees and no bottomless pit of money, you cut your losses. Thanks for the insult though :-)

Guest101

jekyll79 wrote: »

Actually, I think you have a lot to learn about the legal system. There are absolutely no guarantees of recouping when you take an action against somebody. In this case, the conveyancing solicitor technically carried out all that was needed by the law. Did they do a thorough job? That is a question that may have been answered in my favour in an expensive case involving expensive barristers. However, I do not have £10,000+ to risk on that.

Due to a loophole in the law, there is actually no requirement for a liquidation petition to be advertised in a central location. This is only a requirement once it has been ratified by a court. The petition in question was raised about 2 weeks before I completed. Due to this, it could very likely be argued that the conveyancing solicitor actually did no wrong, they simply didn't go "above and beyond" the call of the duty. Or it may have been found that even though legally they did the required minimum, they should have still endeavoured to cover all bases. This basically would rely on a judgement call.

Not having the money to risk a further £10,000.00 fighting, when you have been offered a settlement which doesn't quite cover everything is not "foolish". Had I fought it and lost, I would have been out of pocket a lot more than the £10,000.00+ it would have cost me to fight it.

Thanks for your input, but you are clearly working from a "what you think is right" rulebook rather than the real world rule book. That one, as has been revealed to me over the last year, differs depends on how much money you have behind you.

1: courts always decide whether there was liability or not. You didn't want to gamble, that's your choice. I doubt very much a solicitor would pay out unless they absolutely had to.
2: if you know so much about the law, why are you here?
3: no my post wasn't based on what I think, it's based on what I know.

I could go on to say: other things, about your building and neighbours and how your attitude sounds perfect for where you live, but that would be petty...

jekyll79

This is what I find so frustrating about people who think they know....sigh.

1) I DID want to gamble and take them to court, but my wish to not risk everything to do it meant that I couldn't. I did not have an option. If I had gambled and lost, I would probably have ended up bankrupt. That is not a sensible risk to take.
2) I "know so much about the law" because I have spent the last year researching every avenue in this and have spent thousands with solicitors doing this also. I am in talks with my local MP to have this loophole in liquidation law closed forcing petitions to be advertised in a timely manner. However this is not a quick process and as you can imagine I have other issues to worry about.
3) If you know so much, then maybe you would have been able to put your knowledge into the real world and assume why an intelligent person without a bottomless pit of funds might not have gambled. Instead you took a cheap shot.

You could go on to say a lot of things I am sure. The fact is that you make assumptions based on what you have already shown is a mentality to simply point and laugh. The legal system is flawed. The whole property business is flawed. Without risking your money, you have no option of redress in a civil matter. Laughing at someone because they do not have endless funds is not big and is not clever.

Guest101

jekyll79 wrote: »

This is what I find so frustrating about people who think they know....sigh.

1) I DID want to gamble and take them to court, but my wish to not risk everything to do it meant that I couldn't. I did not have an option. If I had gambled and lost, I would probably have ended up bankrupt. That is not a sensible risk to take.without this turning into a pointless argument, you just said you didn't gamble. Want it not, you could've but you didn't
2) I "know so much about the law" because I have spent the last year researching every avenue in this and have spent thousands with solicitors doing this also. I am in talks with my local MP to have this loophole in liquidation law closed forcing petitions to be advertised in a timely manner. However this is not a quick process and as you can imagine I have other issues to worry about.good for you, that's very noble. Doesn't make anything I've said any more incorrect, but good for you
3) If you know so much, then maybe you would have been able to put your knowledge into the real world and assume why an intelligent person without a bottomless pit of funds might not have gambled. Instead you took a cheap shot.i didn't take a cheap shot, in my opinion you were foolish not to secure remedy on a liability you have to the tune of £100,000+ but I'm entitled to my opinion

You could go on to say a lot of things I am sure. The fact is that you make assumptions based on what you have already shown is a mentality to simply point and laugh. The legal system is flawed. The whole property business is flawed. Without risking your money, you have no option of redress in a civil manner. Laughing at someone because they do not have endless funds is not big and is not clever.i didn't point and laugh. I told you who to speak to about the lease, ie the administrators / liquidators. The legal system is not flawed, you can't expect solicitors to work pro bono for you.you didn't need endless funds, apparently you needed 10k. And no you have no redress unless you seek it out yourself

Reply in red above

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

Don't worry OP, our friend guest knows sweet fanny Adams about the law, see his efforts on libel last week for a case in point....

jekyll79

This discussion is pointless!

I said I did want to gamble, but couldn't. I didn't have the cash to risk the extra £10,000+ I would have needed. I had already spent out about £10,000.00. I am down about £2,000.00 and a lot of my time. That is preferable to potentially being £20,000+ down. With these cases you don't get to profit from a win you know. If you were a solicitor you would understand that. There wasn't even a "loss of enjoyment" claim as the service that was purchased from the conveyancing solicitor was not for the purpose of enjoyment. I had thought that I could make such a claim. But no. Unless you think you know more about the law than the litigator I used. If so, maybe you could represent me?

The legal system IS flawed and this case proves that. The very fact that a liquidation petition does not have to be advertised in a timely manner (immediately?!?), yet any sales made after the event can be rendered void is flawed to start with. I deal with catch all logical requirements on a daily basis as a computer scientist. That section of the law is MASSIVELY flawed if it allows people to fall through the cracks without having a mechanism to protect the innocent without making them fork out thousands.

Making people pay to seek redress when they have been wronged means that the legal system is intrinsically flawed. It should be a case of "Might FOR Right" instead it is a case of "Might IS Right". Not being aware of that central flaw in the system leads me to believe that you have either never been involved with it, or you have always had the funds to spare in gambling with it. Lucky you.

Anyway, this was not meant to be about those issues (which are pretty much closed). This post was meant to be about getting access to a landlord's details to try and sort out damage caused by their tenant. It looks like I shall have to get his/her details from my new neighbour who is entitled to know their landlord's contact details.

Guest101

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »

Don't worry OP, our friend guest knows sweet fanny Adams about the law, see his efforts on libel last week for a case in point....

The one where u got proved wrong two posts later? Ye...

Another for the ignore list I feel