Appointed LPA receivers

Aimeejoy89

Hi I need some help here .
Our property was taken over by LPA receiver just 3 month into our contract. The agents acting on behalf of the LPA receiver have advised we are in a binding contract that ends in October this year and that we are unable to end the contract early. Is this right? My partner and I are itching to move out of this house since this has happened but are being forced to see out our contract. Our first child is due in September and I really could do with out having to move house with a newborn.
Any help would be much appreciated.
Thanks

Aimeejoy89

I should add our property is rented. We oroginallly rented through a local estate agent but now our agents is based 160miles away with little to no interest in us as tenants.

Slithery

That's correct. The only way to end a tenancy early is by mutual consent with the landlord. If they are unwilling to end the tenancy early there is nothing you can do.

franklee

Sorry to hear this has happened.

If you are in a fixed term and there is no break clause then unless you can agree a mutual surrender of the tenancy with your landlord then you are bound by the tenancy agreement.

However you could be given two months notice under the Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010. In that case you may be asked to move before the fixed term is up. It would help if you can find out if your tenancy is binding on the mortgage lender so do try to find out. If it is you can at least have some piece of mind until the end of the fixed term and will need to be served notice in the usual way should they want you to leave after that. Have a read of this:

https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/repossession/repossession_by_a_landlords_lender

See also:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mortgage-repossessions-protection-of-tenants-etc-act-2010-guidance

Make sure you read all letters including any addressed to the occupier. Don't assume they are junk mail.

sparky130a

Aimeejoy89 wrote: »

Hi I need some help here .
Our property was taken over by LPA receiver just 3 month into our contract. The agents acting on behalf of the LPA receiver have advised we are in a binding contract that ends in October this year and that we are unable to end the contract early. Is this right? My partner and I are itching to move out of this house since this has happened but are being forced to see out our contract. Our first child is due in September and I really could do with out having to move house with a newborn.
Any help would be much appreciated.
Thanks

I don't understand. Who cares where the money goes? You entered into a rental contract. Honour it. The recipient of said funds makes no difference to your personal circumstance.

Aimeejoy89

Thank you all for your andvise.
I understand my personal circumstances makes no odds to the receiver and we will continue to pay rent until we are legally free to move on.

No one would rent a property under repossesion we entered this contract on completely different terms to what we have been forced into and the situation is not pleasant for anyone to go through.

Thank you all for your input and understanding.

G_M

See


* Repossession: what if a LL's mortgage lender repossesses the property?

MobileSaver

Aimeejoy89 wrote: »

we entered this contract on completely different terms to what we have been forced into

What are the different terms you have been forced into?

xylophone

No one would rent a property under repossesion we entered this contract on completely different terms to what we have been forced into and the situation is not pleasant for anyone to go through.

Having read your first post (and GM's Guide), it would appear that your only concern for the moment is to clarify to whom the rent should be paid?

One assumes that when you took on the tenancy you knew that you were pregnant - you had no guarantee of being able to extend the term so what were your back up plans?

I'd have thought that moving with a new born was far easier than moving with an active toddler or even with older children where there would be considerations of school etc.

An infant is easily portable and food's on tap?:)

wantonnoodle

xylophone wrote: »

One assumes that when you took on the tenancy you knew that you were pregnant

I would put money on it that this is not the case, unless we are not talking about humans, or you have a time machine (which most of us don't have).

ASTs are a minimum of 6 months - if it was a 6 month contract, they would have moved in in April, as the contract is due to end in October. 3 months into a contract would therefore be July, so the repossession wouldn't have happened yet. Therefore, it is highly likely that it was a 12 month contract starting in October 2016. As pregnancy lasts 9 months in humans, a due date of September implies conception in January, so 4 months after the start of the tenancy (assuming October move in date).

G_M

wantonnoodle wrote: »

I would put money on it that this is not the case, unless we are not talking about humans, or you have a time machine (which most of us don't have).

ASTs are a minimum of 6 months - if it was a 6 month contract, they would have moved in in April, as the contract is due to end in October. 3 months into a contract would therefore be July, so the repossession wouldn't have happened yet. Therefore, it is highly likely that it was a 12 month contract starting in October 2016. As pregnancy lasts 9 months in humans, a due date of September implies conception in January, so 4 months after the start of the tenancy (assuming October move in date).

I can't fault your maths, but xylophone still raises (though not directly) a relevant point.

The pregancy would have arisen whether or not the property was taken over. The repossession changes nothing.