1977 Rent Act Tenancy - Nightmare Situation

Woofiedog

I am a tenant under the above act, which is not in dispute.

In September 2022 a new owner bought the flat I live in and he uses a separate legal entity agent to manage it. But neither one of them will admit to being the landlord, which I define as the party that is legally liable for the flat and their relationship with me too if anything should happen they are cupable of (health and safety issues) or they harrass me (I have been before under a previous landlord and sitting tenants like me are more prone to this than other types of tenant).

I have asked for clarity on that situation but it has not been forthcoming. In fact the investor has refused, as has the agent when I asked to see their contractual arrangements between them. Therefore, I have been putting what should have been rent into a separate account away from my own money. I have made it clear they will get what is owing when these matters are settled. But the longer this goes on the more nervous I am getting.

The owner calls himself an investor and the landlord he claims is just a company he runs but not him personally. He is just the Director of that company. The agency he uses he claims is not the landlord but just the agent. But it is abundantly clear to me that the agent are really acting landlords because the investor / landlord company is leaving them to not just manage the property on the investor's behalf but to take full control of all negotiations, including any rent increases that may be payable in future. In other words they are the landlord in practice; they just don't own the property. I feel that I am entitled to know the true status of both parties in practice by reading the contract they have between them, but the investor has since told me, infornally, that all decisions are made by what he calls the agent and his company is the landlord but not him. They won't send me their contract claiming it is none of my business. To me, this seems a fishy arrangement as neither party will be liable should I ever need to make a claim. If I am harassed, I do not have a clear defendent in which to bring a claim. I find this totally unacceptable.

Furthermore, the new owner/landlord/agent - whatever - cannot uphold their legal obligations to maintain all parts of the flat exterior because the outside of my south facing wall is totally blocked off by the neighbouring flat underneath whose garden totally blocks off all access for maintenance staff. Therefore, the new genuine landlord needs to buy the freehold to have voting rights (I live in five flat Victorian house which has a joint freeholding company managed by the owner occupants there). So far this has not been forthcoming. They are not listed on the freeholder's joint management company. The investor claimed that they had simply bougth the lease on my flat not the freehold and they need not maintain the exterior of the flat just the interior. This is wrong in law as I know they have to maintain the exterior too - the shell to the interior.

Does anyone have any legal knowledge of whether I am doing the right thing by keeping back the rent. I have asked the investor to provide proof with a s.3 notice and a s.48 notice. The 'agent' sent me a letter telling me about the new investor who had bought the flat and to send all maintenance issue to them. The investor recently told me that all notices should be served on the company he is Director of. This is a flat out contradiction. I have no idea where I stand, who the landlord really is in practice and not on paper either and it seems this arrangement is designed purposefully to avoid any legal liability for any issues that might arise which might be compensatible.

Sorry to bore you with this long winded post, but I really don't want to get into a legal fight. The last one I had (ok I was victorious) was stressful, expensive and time consuming. I don't want to repeat it.

propertyrental

Yes.

Try quoting the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985  S3  to them both!

3 Duty to inform tenant of assignment of landlord’s interest.
(1)If the interest of the landlord under a tenancy of premises which consist of or include a dwelling is assigned, the new landlord shall give notice in writing of the assignment, and of his name and address, to the tenant not later than the next day on which rent is payable under the tenancy or, if that is within two months of the assignment, the end of that period of two months.
(2)If trustees consititute the new landlord, a collective description of the trustes as the trustees of the trust in question may be given as the name of the landlord, and where such a collective description is given—
(a)the address of the new landlord may be given as the address from which the affairs of the trust are conducted, and
(b)a change in the persons who are for the time being the trustees of the trust shall not be treated as an assignment of the interest of the landlord.

(3)A person who is the new landlord under a tenancy falling within subsection (1) and who fails, without reasonable excuse to give the notice required by that subsection, commits a summary offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

[F1(3A)The person who was the landlord under the tenancy immediately before the assignment (“the old landlord”) shall be liable to the tenant in respect of any breach of any covenant, condition or agreement under the tenancy occurring before the end of the relevant period in like manner as if the interest assigned were still vested in him; and where the new landlord is also liable to the tenant in respect of any such breach occurring within that period, he and the old landlord shall be jointly and severally liable in respect of it.

Have any of them actually asked for rent?

And if you have any issues (eg a repair needed) try demanding it of the old landlord, quoting the Act and S3A above.

Note prosecution under the Act would be done by the council or Trading Standards I believe. A private prosecution would be hard, and the police won't be interested.....

DullGreyGuy

Given you have talked about rent increases you have presumably had a new tenancy agreement since the property changed hands? Who does that identify as the counterparty?

theartfullodger

You do not have to own a place to be landlord.  Just the right/authority to rent it out in your name ("your" being human or corporate).

But aiui no rent is due unless you been served with name & address of "the landlord".

More importantly have been served notice (s) compliant with s48 & s3?  If not no rent due (as before) -s48 - or possible fines and criminal record (s3).

Suggest you 'phone the experts in landlord/tenant matters, including rent act tenancies, Shelter, 0808 800 4444.

Best wishes.

Woofiedog

DullGreyGuy said:

Given you have talked about rent increases you have presumably had a new tenancy agreement since the property changed hands? Who does that identify as the counterparty?

No, as a sitting tenant, the original agreement is what is in place which I entered into when I took on the flat in 1983.

Woofiedog

propertyrental said:

Yes.

Try quoting the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985  S3  to them both!

3 Duty to inform tenant of assignment of landlord’s interest.
(1)If the interest of the landlord under a tenancy of premises which consist of or include a dwelling is assigned, the new landlord shall give notice in writing of the assignment, and of his name and address, to the tenant not later than the next day on which rent is payable under the tenancy or, if that is within two months of the assignment, the end of that period of two months.
(2)If trustees consititute the new landlord, a collective description of the trustes as the trustees of the trust in question may be given as the name of the landlord, and where such a collective description is given—
(a)the address of the new landlord may be given as the address from which the affairs of the trust are conducted, and
(b)a change in the persons who are for the time being the trustees of the trust shall not be treated as an assignment of the interest of the landlord.

(3)A person who is the new landlord under a tenancy falling within subsection (1) and who fails, without reasonable excuse to give the notice required by that subsection, commits a summary offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

[F1(3A)The person who was the landlord under the tenancy immediately before the assignment (“the old landlord”) shall be liable to the tenant in respect of any breach of any covenant, condition or agreement under the tenancy occurring before the end of the relevant period in like manner as if the interest assigned were still vested in him; and where the new landlord is also liable to the tenant in respect of any such breach occurring within that period, he and the old landlord shall be jointly and severally liable in respect of it.

Have any of them actually asked for rent?

And if you have any issues (eg a repair needed) try demanding it of the old landlord, quoting the Act and S3A above.

Note prosecution under the Act would be done by the council or Trading Standards I believe. A private prosecution would be hard, and the police won't be interested.....

Yes, they have asked for rent and I know who to contact for maintenance. But I won't pay the rent over until I know what the legal situation is regarding liability. I am entitled to clarity on who I am dealing with.

martindow

Have you looked on the Land Regsitry site to pay £3 to see what details of ownership are on there?

https://www.gov.uk/search-property-information-land-registry

Schwarzwald

I am no lawyer and cant quote clauses
but it seems there is some true confusion around terms between owner/landlord/agent and freeholder/leaseholder/management company

and while I would expect that you have (some) right to know who your counterparty is as a tenant, e.g. a Ltd company being the landlord represented by its directors, I would be surprised if you are "entitled" to knowing about any agreements between third parties with whom you indeed might not have any business, e.g. the agency contract between the landord, e.g. Ltd company, and the agent.

Woofiedog

The issue is not about ownership of the flat. I know who that is. The issue is really about what the definition of a landlord is. I own shares in some companies but I don't run them, manage them or take any active interest in the running of them or how they are financed etc.. I just want the dividends and capital gain on the shares. So surely the term landlord means more than simply owner with a purely financial interest.

The landlord is, at the heart of the matter, the party who will be legally liable for any health and safety, maintenance issue disrepair claims resuting in harm and who I would be able to successfully sue if I were to make a claim for harassment. This is the party for whom Notices - all (from repair issues to county court claims) should be served either directly or via their Agent who works on the landlord's behalf by following the landlord's rules becuase the landlord is still liable. The agent should just be the spare pair of hands doing the practical stuff but not on their own terms but the landlord's terms.

What I have is a different scenario where the so called agent is really the acting landlord, making all the decisions based on their own rules and procedures, whilst enjoying no legal liability for these decisions becuase they are not named as 'landlord.'So if I were to make a county court claim the judge would not be sure who was liable unless they saw the upper contract between the investor owner and the so called agent making all the decisions.

This is a very real problem that needs addressing and probably not one that many people think about. I realise that, but it is of real concern to me as I have legal training and used to be a county court advocate, so I know what a judge would expect from a claimant bringing any kind of claim against a defendent. The parties and their true actual status has to be crystal clear.

propertyrental

Woofiedog said:

In September 2022 a new owner bought the flat I live in and he uses a separate legal entity agent to manage it.
Meaning what? An agent is ...an agent and yes, agents are 'legal entities'.

 But neither one of them will admit to being the landlord, which I define as the party that is legally liable for the flat and their relationship with me too if anything should happen they are cupable of (health and safety issues) or they harrass me (I have been before under a previous landlord and sitting tenants like me are more prone to this than other types of tenant).
Yes you are right as to a LL's obligations, but see below.

I have asked for clarity on that situation but it has not been forthcoming. In fact the investor has refused, as has the agent when I asked to see their contractual arrangements between them.
The contract between investor (LL whoever) and his agent is none of your business.

Therefore, I have been putting what should have been rent into a separate account away from my own money. I have made it clear they will get what is owing when these matters are settled. But the longer this goes on the more nervous I am getting.
Have you ben chased for this rent? If so, by who?

The owner calls himself an investor and the landlord he claims is just a company he runs but not him personally.
Perfectly possible for the landlord to be a company. Many companies own and rent out properties.

He is just the Director of that company.
OK.
The agency he uses he claims is not the landlord but just the agent.
Very common and very likely.

 But it is abundantly clear to me that the agent are really acting landlords because the investor / landlord company is leaving them to not just manage the property on the investor's behalf but to take full control of all negotiations, including any rent increases that may be payable in future.
Perfectly possible for the LL to delegate this to his agent. Some LLs simply delegate the 'tenant find' function, some delegate rent collection too.  Others delegate repair management. and still others delegate even more eg rent negotiation.
But whichever it is, the agent is doing this on behalf of the landlord, not as the landlord.

 In other words they are the landlord in practice; No. You cannot jump to that conclusion. No such thing as a 'landlord in practice'. They are either the landlord, or the landlord's agent. There is nothing in between.
they just don't own the property. I feel that I am entitled to know the true status of both parties in practice by reading the contract they have between them, you have no such right. Your right is to be formally advised of the assignment, and the name/address of the new LL as per the Act I quoted previously.

Has this happened?

 but the investor has since told me, infornally, that all decisions are made by what he calls the agent Very likely true.

 and his company is the landlord but not him.  Very likely true.

They won't send me their contract claiming it is none of my business. True.

To me, this seems a fishy arrangement as neither party will be liable should I ever need to make a claim. If I am harassed, I do not have a clear defendent in which to bring a claim. I find this totally unacceptable.
You sue 'The landlord' as advised to you under the Act above. That may be the investor or, more likely, the Company of which he is Director.

Furthermore, the new owner/landlord/agent - whatever - cannot uphold their legal obligations to maintain all parts of the flat exterior because the outside of my south facing wall is totally blocked off by the neighbouring flat underneath whose garden totally blocks off all access for maintenance staff.
this is a totally separaret issue and presumably was the case under the old LL?

Therefore, the new genuine landlord needs to buy the freehold to have voting rights (I live in five flat Victorian house which has a joint freeholding company managed by the owner occupants there).
You cannot dictate what the investor chooses to purchase! Presumably he owns the lease to the flat, and the lease will specify how (and by whom) repairs are organised and paid for.
So far this has not been forthcoming. They are not listed on the freeholder's joint management company. The investor claimed that they had simply bougth the lease on my flat not the freehold and they need not maintain the exterior of the flat just the interior. This is wrong in law as I know they have to maintain the exterior too - the shell to the interior.
In most cases, maintenance of the fabric of the building (roof, exterior walls etc) is the freeholder's responsibilty. Your 'investor', as owner of a lease, can enforce the terms of that lease to make the freeholder undertake repairs if needed.

Putting aside your tenancy, there are millions of flats in England where this is the norm. A leaseholder does not need to own the freehold in order to get maintenance /repairs done.

Does anyone have any legal knowledge of whether I am doing the right thing by keeping back the rent. I have asked the investor to provide proof with a s.3 notice and a s.48 notice.
Good.
 The 'agent' sent me a letter telling me about the new investor who had bought the flat. 
Sounds like a S3 notice under the 1985 Act but.......Please quote. 
and to send all maintenance issue to them.
Sounds like they are acting as agent for repairs but......Please quote.
 The investor recently told me that all notices should be served on the company he is Director of.
Sounds like a S48 Notice under the 1987 Act but.........Please quote.
 This is a flat out contradiction.
Does not appear to be.
I have no idea where I stand, who the landlord really is in practice and not on paper either and it seems this arrangement is designed purposefully to avoid any legal liability for any issues that might arise which might be compensatible.

Just to add to my earlier reply (I've re-read your post!) see bold above.

Woofiedog

theartfullodger said:

You do not have to own a place to be landlord.  Just the right/authority to rent it out in your name ("your" being human or corporate).

But aiui no rent is due unless you been served with name & address of "the landlord".

More importantly have been served notice (s) compliant with s48 & s3?  If not no rent due (as before) -s48 - or possible fines and criminal record (s3).

Suggest you 'phone the experts in landlord/tenant matters, including rent act tenancies, Shelter, 0808 800 4444.

Best wishes.

Thanks for your answer. I have tried Shelter but they don't answer the phone to anyone not about to be made homeless. All I have are private legal firms charging £250 ph. I can't afford these.