Landlord defaulting

Viv

You all sound very aggressive. It's not helping the poor guy and his daughter when all the replies are squabbling amongst themselves!

teeni

It sounds like the mortgage company are repossessing the property and the baliffs warrant has been issued to any interested parties, i.e the tenants.

The tenants rights differ depending on when the mortgage was taken out, before or after the tenancy began. They would not have received a notice as they would if the landlord was evicting them however the court usually sends a letter to the house to advise occupants of the proceedings to allow them to ask to be joined to the proceedings if this is possible.

I would suggest that they speak to Shelter as they will establish whether they have any rights at all.

They need to negotiate with the lenders for a postponment of the eviction order as the court may not have the right to allow one. (depending on the date of the mortgage.)

If they speak to shelter thry will have independant free advice and can then decide if it is worth seeking legal repesentation or not.

BobProperty

teeni wrote: »

..... They would not have received a notice as they would if the landlord was evicting them however the court usually sends a letter to the house to advise occupants of the proceedings to allow them to ask to be joined to the proceedings if this is possible.

Which is why I've asked what happened to this letter. The court sends one out addressed to "The Occupier" at the address. If they didn't get this it adds weight to the case for a Stay of Execution.

teeni wrote: »

They need to negotiate with the lenders for a postponment of the eviction order as the court may not have the right to allow one. (depending on the date of the mortgage.).....

More the other way round IMHO. A nasty lender could just turn round and say tough we've got a date, get out. If appeal is successful partly because the tenant never got the court letter, then the court can suspend the possession for x days and that is what goes, irrespective of what the lender would like.

teeni

your right of course bob property if they did not receive the letter may be enough for a stay, still think we don't know enough details and they need to speak to a legal advisor swiftly

Vickicb

I'm confused, I thought AST's could only be for 6 months? If the tenants have an AST until 1-4-08 then this can only have been taken out 0n 1-10-07, 3 weeks ago. If they found out about this a month ago then it must have been before the AST started?

BobProperty

Vickicb wrote: »

I'm confused, I thought AST's could only be for 6 months?.....

An AST can be as short as you like but the tenant has the right to remain for 6 months, so they are usually for a minimum of 6 months. They can be for as long as 3 years IIRC. There's another thread about this subject called something like "7 year lease" where it gets discussed.

SquatNow

I'de suggest the tennant immediately start sueing the landlord while finding somewhere else.

Even though the place has been reposessed, the f*ckw** landlord probably still owns his own house.... sue them at take their house from them.

Consider squatting... in the current market with BTLers use OO mortgages, Squatting is now more stable than renting, as you get at least 6 months warning while the process takes place, if you even get reposessed at all.

silvercar

If the landlord had a BTL mortgage/ permission to lease the the mortgage lender has to respect the AST ie the lender can repossess the property but has to keep the tenants as tenants; the lender could then sell the property with tenants in situ and accept the rent in the interrim.

If the landlord was letting with a residential mortgage then the AST is only a valid agreement between the landlord and the tenant. The mortgage lender does not have to acknowledge its validity. The repossession will be a breach of the tenancy agreement by the landlord, for which the tenant could pursue for damages.

The options for the tenant are limited. The landlord has a lender pursuing for arrears and a tenant pursuing for breach of contract. Either the landlord is running out of options and pursuing him would be a waste of time (you can't get blood out of a stone), or the landlord was using the rent money to pay the mortgage on his own home and has an asset that could be used as leverage to claim compensation.

If the tenant can discover the latter is the case he should act quickly. If there is not sufficient funds from the house sale to clear the mortgage, the lender will go for a charging order on the landlords (residential) home to get the balance of the funds.

In the short term, the tenant should stop paying the rent to the landlord - keep it to use as a deposit on the next place. Also start looking for your next home.

stats_2

topletters wrote: »

Hi

I'm sorry to raed about this situation. Generally speaking, they would have extensive protection as assured shorthold tenants. However, if the landlord has defaulted on his mortgage, and his lender has been granted a possession order by court and a bailiffs warrant, the unfortunate fact is that the lender's rights of possession will supersede those of the landlord's tenants. I advise your daughter considers the following steps:

1. Keep chasing the letting agent to find out if the landlord has resolved the problem with his lender. After all, they stand to lose some business from him if his property is repossessed.

2. Consider applying to court for a Stay of Eviction (N244) on grounds that they are the tenants and have only just been informed they stand to be evicted through the landlord's failure to pay his mortgage, which is not their fault. Perhaps ask for the maximum time within the court's powers to grant. However, they will be charged a fee by the court and there is no guarantee of success.

3. Have they spoken to their local council's housing advice team? Perhaps the council might liaise on their behalf with the letting agent to try and find a resolution in order to prevent homelessness. I myself have done such work.

I wish you and your daughter well.

Regards

topletters
http://www.topletters.co.uk

Thanks,

Yes we have spoken to the letting agents, they claim all is all right, don't worry, Mr X (The landlord) has many houses, and it is just an administration error. We told them that we would stop the standing order until we have in writing that the eviction is cancelled. We go there again today.

to BobProperty: My daughter received a letter from the court, addressed to the occupiers and noted that the same letter has been send to Mr X, contact details from a solicitor, whom when phoned refused to go into details, only stating that as far as he is concerned the eviction will rake place on Nov 7th

Tha AST is for a year, after being renewed 1 Apr 2007. So they have lived there for 1.5 years already.

I find it all so strange, because the house is in Mr X's possession for a long time (before 2000) and the letting agent says he has many houses. So maybe it is an admin error we have to wait and see, will keep you posted.

The fact remain that towards the tenant hardly anything is regulated

Guy_Montag

In that case I'd call the solicitors (well get the tenants to do it) & ask what the story is. Say that the LA & the LL have told the tenants that it's an administrative error, & can they confirm that this is the case.

Administrative errors, I should think, don't often get through court.