My partner's house has been let without his knowledge or consent-ombudsman won't help

Kynthia

I can't see the point in continuing to go after the agency. They aren't the ones who have a legal responsibility to the OP'S partner. The tenants are innocent and as they have a tenancy they have exclusive occupation of the property, which means the OP's partner only has the right to inspect as long as they give proper notice. They are also at risk of owing tax as it is deemed they are receiving half the rent (less half the allowable expenses) if they are married to the joint owner (assuming they owe equal shares otherwise the ratio might not be 50:50). They could also be jointly responsible for the tenants deposit being protected and complying with landlord regulations such as the gas safety cert, but as they aren't named as landlord on the tenancy agreement then that might not be the case.

I suggest getting proper legal advice before going after the ex in order to get this sorted.

Thrugelmir

Wilma33 wrote: »

So personally I think your issue is with your ex not the letting agency.

Unfortunately one of those situations where innocent bystanders are getting caught in the crossfire of two ex-partners who are at logger heads.

The money may be petty but its the principle of it- she is stealing from him and getting away with it.

Principles are very well. Seems as if this matter is getting out of hand though. As vengance seems to be the end game. Or is it the money?

Focus on getting the divorce finalised. Then you can move on with your lives.

FBaby

There are two issues here, the fact that she went ahead and hid from him that she was letting the place and the issue as to whether the agency acted professionally.

he ombudsman has totally ignored several key pieces of the evidence which would totally contradict what he has said in his findings, but is demanding new evidence?! He has all of the evidence already- he hasn't used it!

In that case, his only way forward is to file a complaint (NOT an appeal) and refer to their policy in regards to reviewing cases, pointing out in detail where they fail to follow their policy (ie. you would expect somewhere that it says that all evidence will be considered), and then pointing out what they failed to take into account.

It would be a very long shot taking that route and you would have to do an excellent job 'proving' that their failed to follow their procedure, but not impossible.

Saying that, what would this achieve? It sounds like the main issue is the fact that he has pocketed money that should have been shared. Initially, I assumed he had continued to pay half the mortgage, and I could understand the rationale for following it up. However, you are now saying that he did stop paying the mortgage, whatever the events that led to it, so all she is getting is £100, which indeed, taking into consideration taxes if applicable, repairs and maintenance, insurance etc... is probably more like £20 if anything.

On this basis, it sounds like all the effort put into trying to get any cash out of the transaction is wasted energy. Surely if she doesn't live there any longer, there are no reasons why the house can't be sold (once tenancy expires)?

chris_m

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Focus on getting the divorce finalised. Then you can move on with your lives.

Could be a bit tricky, unless he can get an injunction to prevent the ex from re-letting the property or extending the current tenancy - and that could be hard to enforce if she does do either because, again, there would be tenants with the perfect right to remain in the house.

melstar11

Has your partner had any legal advice relating to the separation and getting divorced? It seems to me that effort has been expended against the agency his wife works for instead of on dealing with sorting out a divorce. He shouldn't have stopped contributing to the mortgage - that was a big mistake, whatever his reasons.

prowla

It is likely breaking the terms of the mortgage (assuming there is one).

Norman_Castle

Suggest to the ex that she buys his 50% share of the property at a vacant possession value as part of the divorce settlement.

As the mortgage is now being paid by these tenant your partner is benefiting by not having to pay the mortgage.
How many thousands is the divorce settlement?. £100 per month minus landlord costs is £600-£800? per year. I would focus on getting a quick divorce settlement.

bouicca21

All this is crying out for them to stop arguing and agree a financial settlement. Agree being the operative word, this kind of bitterness and quarrelling sounds as though they are heading for a contested settlement, which means putting at least a 4 figure sum and likely a 5 figure one into the pockets of lawyers (each).

If what is mainly at stake is an average house, then spending 10 grand or more on litigation is just plain stupid.

AdrianC

bouicca21 wrote: »

All this is crying out for them to stop arguing and agree a financial settlement. Agree being the operative word, this kind of bitterness and quarrelling sounds as though they are heading for a contested settlement, which means putting at least a 4 figure sum and likely a 5 figure one into the pockets of lawyers (each).

If what is mainly at stake is an average house, then spending 10 grand or more on litigation is just plain stupid.

Since when were rationality and logic welcome in a strop between a divorcing couple...?

bouicca21

Of course it's hard, especially when a third party is involved. But lots of people find the reserves to manage it. I did, with the result that divorce and settlement cost about 700 quid. A friend did not manage it. He and his ex each had bills of over £20k when all that was at stake was a house worth £170,000.