How can I know if a flat is rented to a person or agency?

Cakeguts

Ricardo1980 wrote: »

I agree with your second sentence, but not with the first one.

Very often he told me he had a landlord (when I lived with him), but in the deductions, by email (so I have a proof), he took my money saying he had to pay something I broke (which was completely false) to the agency.
If I know that he is renting the flat to a landlord rather than an agency, I can prove in front of the judge that he is a liar.
I am completely sure he is renting the flat to a landlord but I need something to prove that in court, with that, they will see he is a liar.

Suggestions?

Yes the person that you were renting from did have a landlord. That landlord was the flat owner. However the flat owner was not your landlord so you don't have a contract with him. The owner of the flat rented through an agency the flat to your landlord. When something broke your landlord paid the agency for the breakage that is all fine. Who broke it and whether you should pay for it is between you and your landlord. It has got nothing to do with the agent that the owner of the flat was paying to look after the flat.

A) Owner of flat pays agent to rent flat ( and manage the flat letting.)

Agency finds tenant your landlord. (Your landlord has contact with agency that is managing the letting on behalf of the owner.)

C) You become lodger of the tenant B.

You have no contract with A. A is the owner of the flat. You only have a lodger contract with B.

A is nothing to do with your problem. The agency that is paid by A is nothing to do with your problem.

AdrianC

Ricardo1980 wrote: »

but maybe he doesn't reply or he doesn't care.

And if you phone or text, that changes somehow? He may just put the phone down, or not return your text. His number may have changed in the interim.

Well, maybe there is also another possibility, I remember reading something about the right tenants have to know information about their landlords

You do know who your landlord is.

and head-landlords.

Nope.

But I don't know if that applies to lodgers

The very definition of a lodger requires the landlord to be resident in the same property, which makes it difficult not to be aware of the landlord's identity or address.

or after tenancy/licensee ended.

Nope.

eddddy

Ricardo1980 wrote: »

he took my money saying he had to pay something I broke (which was completely false) to the agency.

So you're saying that your landlord says you broke something...

Are you saying that you didn't break it?
Or
That your landlord is charging you too much fr the broken item?

A good starting point would be to ask for a copy of the receipt for the replacement/repair of the broken item. And perhaps investigate whether the item could have been replaced/repaired more cheaply elsewhere.

bouicca21

Your landlord has to pay for breakages. The judge won't care whether the payment was to an agency or direct to the owner of the flat. Whether or not the landlord's statement is true is going to be irrelevant - what matters is the breakage.

You need to be able to prove that you were not responsible for the breakage. If you can't then you need to establish the value of the item, how old it was (Google 'betterment') and the cost of replacement/repair.

G_M

You are wasting your (and our!) time.

Ricardo1980 wrote: »

Very often he told me he had a landlord (when I lived with him),
whether he does or does not is irrelevant.
but in the deductions, by email (so I have a proof), he took my money saying he had to pay something I broke (which was completely false) to the agency.
Even if he DID say he would have to pay 'the agency', and there IS no agency (so he lied) that is irrelevant. If you broke something, you owe him money.

He can then choose to use the money you give him either
* to buy a replacement for the broken item, or
* to pay the agency (if there is one), or
* to pay his landlord, or
* to go to the pub and have some beer
what he does with the money is not your concern


If I know that he is renting the flat to a landlord rather than an agency, I can prove in front of the judge that he is a liar.
Proving he lied about this will not help you. If you broke something you must pay for it.

If he lies about the value of the item you broke, or the cost of replacing it, that would be relevant to you.

I am completely sure he is renting the flat to a landlord but I need something to prove that in court, with that, they will see he is a liar.

Suggestions?

Forget this pointless investigation.

Ricardo1980

bouicca21 wrote: »

Your landlord has to pay for breakages. The judge won't care whether the payment was to an agency or direct to the owner of the flat. Whether or not the landlord's statement is true is going to be irrelevant - what matters is the breakage.

You need to be able to prove that you were not responsible for the breakage. If you can't then you need to establish the value of the item, how old it was (Google 'betterment') and the cost of replacement/repair.

I would say that is the landlord who has to prove that you broke something (using check in, check out, inventory, dated pictures....)

Kynthia

Sorry, another here that can't see any relevance in your desire to know your landlord's situation. Whether your landlord owned the property, rented through an agency or rented direct from the property owner has zero affect on your contract and responsibilities. You are a lodger with lodger rights and have to follow your contract with your landlord, and he with you. Whether he said he was giving money to an agency or not doesn't matter and I don't think there's a law against lying if he was lying. If you broke something then you should pay for it. If he can't prove you did then you might get away with it but that doesn't make it right.