We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Landlord defaulting
Options
Comments
-
BobProperty wrote: »How are you going to do this.
you could do it yourself - you can look up details of the landlords lender through the deeds on the land registry (costs about 2 quid)....then just phone the lender and ask.... hmm i don't suppose they would probably tell you though as that would be confidential information - would drop your landlord right in it though if they were trying to pull a fast one!0 -
I'm going to disagree with you on that. Surely the AST is valid as it is a contract between consenting parties. The fact that one party to that agreement has breached another agreement with another party does not invalidate it.barnaby-bear wrote: »The AST is only valid if LL had permission to let from mortgage lender, if not they don't have any rights as he had no right to issue tenancy.....
The owner isn't the mortgage holder.barnaby-bear wrote: »They aren't being evicted if this is the case as they had no right to be there from the owner (i.e. the mortgge lender).
Agree with all the above except for thing, they'd be better asking the court for time to get organised and move out. I think most judges would understand the situation.barnaby-bear wrote: »They do have comeback via courts system on the landlord for costs involved for him issuing non-valid AST however if he's being repossessed they maybe at end of long line of lenders. The only thing they can do is beg the mortgage lender for a bit of time/mercy. They should stop paying rent quickly too - perhaps even offer to pay directly to mortgage lender.
Why weren't the tenants notified of the court hearing?A house isn't a home without a cat.
Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others.
I have writer's block - I can't begin to tell you about it.
You told me again you preferred handsome men but for me you would make an exception.
It's a recession when your neighbour loses his job; it's a depression when you lose yours.0 -
They credit check tenants, why should they not credit check LL, that would show up any late payments.BobProperty wrote: »How are you going to do this? Ask the landlord? It would be nice if all LA asked for documentary proof that they have permission to let and their mortgage payments were up to date but 1, that cost the LA time and therefore money and 2, the dodgy landlords will just use the dodgy LAs who don't ask.
As for "permission to let", I guess you'll need to help me with this one. Do you when you get a BTL mortgage get a piece of paper saying you have permission to let? Or is that a given, I don't know never having had a mortgage, ditto for residential mortgage where permission to let is arranged later. There must be something at that point, a letter from the lender.
As for a letter to the occupier, if the mortgage company is unaware that the property is let, they may be sending all the documentation to the LL @ property address, if the LL has mail forwarding by royal mail, the occupant may never know."Mrs. Pench, you've won the car contest, would you like a triumph spitfire or 3000 in cash?" He smiled.
Mrs. Pench took the money. "What will you do with it all? Not that it's any of my business," he giggled.
"I think I'll become an alcoholic," said Betty.0 -
Hi
The villain here IS the landlord who has orchestrated this by not paying the mortgage not the lender where the focus is.
Yes the lender and the court are innocent in this but they are the mechanism of the unlawful eviction set in motion by the landlord.0 -
You're wrong. How can a court decision be "unlawful"?mightymouse wrote: »Hi
Thanks for the advice bob property but why would you think I need it, are you saying I am wrong or what I say is irrelevant.A house isn't a home without a cat.
Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others.
I have writer's block - I can't begin to tell you about it.
You told me again you preferred handsome men but for me you would make an exception.
It's a recession when your neighbour loses his job; it's a depression when you lose yours.0 -
Hi
Simple breach of contract between landlord and tenant.
Where did I say the court was 'unlawful'0 -
mightymouse wrote: »Hi
Simple breach of contract between landlord and tenant.
Where did I say the court was 'unlawful'
There is NO TENANT in the eyes of the law.
If I give you an AST on a random house in the street and claim to be the owner you have no rights to live there and the owners can chuck you out. The mortgage company own the house and the landlord can't let it out without their say so he has no right to do so in the eyes of the law so the AST isn't legal.... it's a loophole the eviction isn't illegal as there is no-one to be evicted as there is no tenancy nor any tenants. Some random bloke who had no right to took their money in rent claiming to be able to rent out a property he had no rights to make the claim on - unfortunately they don't chuck criminal proceedings at such people - and recourse has to be via civil courts.... There is no tenant to be evicted there is a fraudster who gave out a fake AST.....0 -
Which has nothing to do with the legal situation between the landlord and the mortgage holder.mightymouse wrote: »Hi
Simple breach of contract between landlord and tenant.
You were talking about unlawful eviction. I was pointing out that if a court evicts you it isn't unlawful.mightymouse wrote: »Where did I say the court was 'unlawful'
I also think you would have a hard task getting a criminal conviction of unlawful eviction as you would have to show intent on the landlord's actions of not paying the mortgage.
If the Op hasn't fallen asleep then could you check into my previous relevant question:
Why weren't the tenants notified of the court hearing?A house isn't a home without a cat.
Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others.
I have writer's block - I can't begin to tell you about it.
You told me again you preferred handsome men but for me you would make an exception.
It's a recession when your neighbour loses his job; it's a depression when you lose yours.0 -
Barnaby - stop talking bollards. The mortgage company don't "own the house" they have a first charge on it. There are laws on how this works. The fact that another (tenancy) agreement exists is only peripherally acknowledged. The process works according to law.barnaby-bear wrote: »There is NO TENANT in the eyes of the law.
If I give you an AST on a random house in the street and claim to be the owner you have no rights to live there and the owners can chuck you out. The mortgage company own the house and the landlord can't let it out without their say so he has no right to do so in the eyes of the law so the AST isn't legal.... it's a loophole the eviction isn't illegal as there is no-one to be evicted as there is no tenancy nor any tenants. Some random bloke who had no right to took their money in rent claiming to be able to rent out a property he had no rights to make the claim on - unfortunately they don't chuck criminal proceedings at such people - and recourse has to be via civil courts.... There is no tenant to be evicted there is a fraudster who gave out a fake AST.....
If you were to give me "an AST on a random house" then the owner would have to go to court to get me out. You would be open to fraud charges. According to your interpretation, the owner could just come round and chuck me out on the street because there isn't an AST therefore that action wouldn't be illegal.A house isn't a home without a cat.
Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others.
I have writer's block - I can't begin to tell you about it.
You told me again you preferred handsome men but for me you would make an exception.
It's a recession when your neighbour loses his job; it's a depression when you lose yours.0 -
Do they have squatters' rights then?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards