Landlord has put property on the market...my rights as a tennant?!

AdrianC

IvyFlood wrote: »

It is the mothers name on the contract but the property is let through an agency. The house is owned by her daughter who lives in a different part of the UK hence why her mother 'looks after' it. I have no idea whose name is on the title deeds.

If the daughter owns it, her name is on Land Registry. If her name is on Land Registry, she owns it.


If the daughter owns it, then the daughter is the landlord. The mother may manage it, but valid notice must come from the daughter. Whether the mother or the postie or whoever physically delivers it is irrelevant.

IvyFlood

AdrianC wrote: »

If the daughter owns it, her name is on Land Registry. If her name is on Land Registry, she owns it.


If the daughter owns it, then the daughter is the landlord. The mother may manage it, but valid notice must come from the daughter. Whether the mother or the postie or whoever physically delivers it is irrelevant.

Thank you - I will bear this in mind if it comes to that! Hopefully it won't. I'm not sure how clued up she will be. For all I know the mother might actually legally own it now although she's always referring to it being her daughters house. I'm pretty sure she just 'manages' it.


I'm not sure the estate/letting agents are that great either. I was looking at the property listing at the EPC and it had on it the house number of next door! Not sure if that's just a mistake or not.

G_M

AdrianC wrote: »

If the daughter owns it, her name is on Land Registry. If her name is on Land Registry, she owns it.

If the daughter owns it, then the daughter is the landlord. The mother may manage it, but valid notice must come from the daughter. Whether the mother or the postie or whoever physically delivers it is irrelevant.

Not convinced that's the case.

It does not automatically follow that the owner of a property is the landlord of a tenant. Sub-letting is an obvious example (Owner lets to A. A sub-lets to B. B's landlord is A, not the property owner).

In this case my guess is that the mother does not rent from the daughter, so is not sub-lettting.

Again guessing, I'd say she is attempting to let on behalf of her daughter. This would be fine if she had POA for the daughter (which she may or may not).

But the bottom line is that the mother is named on the TA as the landlord. The tenant should therefore pay rent (via the agent?) to the named landlord (mother), and legal notices relating to the tenancy should be addressed to the mother at the address "for serving notices".

If it transpires that the mother is acting illegaly (eg by fraudulantly letting out a property she does not own, does not let/sub-let, and without the owner's consent, that is a matter between the daughter and the mother.


As for notices served by the mother on the tenant, the T could certainlyy try arguing these are invalid on the grounds that the mother has no right to let the property (eg no ownership, no sub-let, no POA), but I stll query how a court would view this.


I suspect the court would conclude that

* the tenant has been paying the mother rent

* in accordance with a TA which names the mother as landlord,

and hence a notice served by the mother in that capacity would be valid.


But
a) I might be wrong and
b) judges can be unpredictable!

IvyFlood

Would it help if I mentioned that when we pay our rent it is direct into the daughters bank account. It is her name that I set up the standing order to. I have also just double checked the contract and it is definitely the mother who is named as the landlord in the particulars section. There is no mention of the daughter.

We don't have any dealings with the letting agent. I assume that someone (the daughter or the mother) pays a fee to the agency. For all we know the mother might have POA over the daughter I don't know!