Withholding rent due to landlords mortgage lender seeking repossession of house we rent

Murphybear

user1977 said:

emmajones1976 said:

HarryCarter1995 said:

emmajones1976 said:

I have no idea of the answer to this, but would the bank taking possession of a house overwrite the rights of a tenant on a AST? If no, then its none of your concern who owns the house.

Landlord has already been issued an order for sale for 250k worth of debt that he owed the company.

But now the mortgage lender is getting involved and they will have mandatory right to possession.

And my question would be does that wipe out the rights of a tenant, or not?

From the OP:

"We have been in touch with Shelter and CAB and our tenancy is not binding on the mortgage lender."

I’m surprised at that.  I’ve had a look at Shelters website and in most cases the tenancy is binding on the mortgage lender.  

steampowered

I would keep the rent. 100%.

In fact, the landlord owes you money for:
- Return of the deposit.
- The penalty which applies for not protecting the deposit.
- Compensation for breach of contract, given that he was not entitled to let the property.
- Compensation for the fact that your right to quiet enjoyment of the property is being interrupted.

That's more than enough to offset against the rent. If you pay the rent to your landlord now, the reality is that you will never get your deposit back.

You could sue the landlord for your deposit after the tenancy ends, but it sounds like he doesn't have any money.

You should contact the lender. It is possible that the lender might agree to let you stay in the property for a period of time, so that you can organise your affairs, without needing to apply to court.

HarryCarter1995

steampowered said:

I would keep the rent. 100%.

In fact, the landlord owes you money for:
- Return of the deposit.
- The penalty which applies for not protecting the deposit.
- Compensation for breach of contract, given that he was not entitled to let the property.
- Compensation for the fact that your right to quiet enjoyment of the property is being interrupted.

That's more than enough to offset against the rent. If you pay the rent to your landlord now, the reality is that you will never get your deposit back.

You could sue the landlord for your deposit after the tenancy ends, but it sounds like he doesn't have any money.

You should contact the lender. It is possible that the lender might agree to let you stay in the property for a period of time, so that you can organise your affairs, without needing to apply to court.

I have just contacted the lender and they won't tell me anything other than what they have sent in the letter because I'm not named on the account 

Wes121708

It's only at the stage of possession hearing so possession could be a few months off yet. 
It sounds like the landlord has no means to keep the property depending if it's a buy to let the mortgage lender could consider appointing a receiver. 
If you require an extension of the warrant a lender might want to see sight of a tenancy agreement and evidence of rental payment to agree and if not an application to the court will need to be made.
If a possession order is granted at the hearing you will be given notice when the lender requests a warrant of possession.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/19/contents

Personally I would continue as usual and look to find alternative accommodation in the meantime as it's only delaying the inevitable!

canaldumidi

user1977 said:

» show previous quotes

From the OP:

"We have been in touch with Shelter and CAB and our tenancy is not binding on the mortgage lender."

Murphybear said:

user1977 said:

emmajones1976 said:

HarryCarter1995 said:

emmajones1976 said:

I have no idea of the answer to this, but would the bank taking possession of a house overwrite the rights of a tenant on a AST? If no, then its none of your concern who owns the house.

Landlord has already been issued an order for sale for 250k worth of debt that he owed the company.

But now the mortgage lender is getting involved and they will have mandatory right to possession.

And my question would be does that wipe out the rights of a tenant, or not?

From the OP:

"We have been in touch with Shelter and CAB and our tenancy is not binding on the mortgage lender."

I’m surprised at that.  I’ve had a look at Shelters website and in most cases the tenancy is binding on the mortgage lender.  

It is only binding if the mortgage lender approved the tenancy eg a BTL mortgage or CTL, or other form of approval. Without that, the lender is bound by the Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010 but not the tenancy per se.

More here:

Post 6: Repossession: what if a LL's mortgage lender repossesses the property?