1977 Rent Act Tenancy - Nightmare Situation

propertyrental

Woofiedog said:

Does anyone have any legal knowledge of whether I am doing the right thing by keeping back the rent.

Legally speaking you can with hold rent if you've not been served a S48 notice (read the Act). However I suspect you have been. Certainly long ago in the past. They don't become invalid just because of a belief there's ben a change of ownership which you have not been formally advised of.

And indeed you said earlier "The investor recently told me that all notices should be served on the company he is Director of". I asked for a quote so we could comment more authoritatively but .... not forthcoming.

Short of that, no, legally under contract law you should pay your rent.

There are indeed a couple of explanations
* the property might be owned by a company (as the investor has intimated - again, I asked for a quote.....) and the agency might be just that. An agent for the company.
* the property might have been let by the investor or company to the agency, who are subletting to you. In that case, yes, the agent is your landlord, but nothing you have written suggests this.
* The investor might be your landlord (as an individual), but again that does not seem to be the case.

Given that you appear to know at least some of the relevant tenancy law, ad have been referred in this thread to relevant clauses in relevant Acts, why are you not following up on those Acts. They were passed by the government specifically to protect tenants and clarify LLs' obligations!

You said earlier:

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.

but I don't see the relevance. If that company were to do something that warranted legal action (ripped off a customer, broke employment law for an employee, or..... failed to comply with tenancy law regarding a property the company owned), the the injured party (customer, employee, tenant etc) would sue the company.

Not the individual shareholders.

anselld

Surely it is simple to determine the new Landlord due to the fact that Landlord status has been acquired through purchase of the property.  Only the entity who purchased the property can be the new Landlord and that is simple to determine.  The management arrangements with individuals and other entities are immaterial.
 

Yes, the correct notices must be served to receive rent but that is all.  Withholding rent if legally compliant notices have been served is dangerous.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the new owner and Landlord being a Company and assuming that is a limited company the ownership and control will be transparent through Companies house.  If you want/need to sue a Limited company you can do.

SDLT_Geek

anselld said:

Surely it is simple to determine the new Landlord due to the fact that Landlord status has been acquired through purchase of the property.  Only the entity who purchased the property can be the new Landlord and that is simple to determine.  The management arrangements with individuals and other entities are immaterial.
 

Yes, the correct notices must be served to receive rent but that is all.  Withholding rent if legally compliant notices have been served is dangerous.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the new owner and Landlord being a Company and assuming that is a limited company the ownership and control will be transparent through Companies house.  If you want/need to sue a Limited company you can do.

I would agree with what you say @anselld, apart from the possibility of the "new owner" who "bought the flat" in September 2022 having granted a lease to another entity (say Company X which seeks to make money by subletting property) for say 6 years.  If that is the case then Company X would be the direct landlord of OP and be entitled to the rent.  The "chain" of interests would be:

1. Freeholder (perhaps a company controlled by the lessees)
2. Long lessee of the flat (the person who OP describes as the "new owner" who "bought the flat" in September 2022
3. Company X
4. OP

The Long lessee or Company X might, or might not, employ an agent to manage their interests, but that is not relevant to OP's concern as to "who is the landlord?", however much decision making power might have been delegated to the agent.  It is none of OP's business what the terms of that deal are, beyond knowing that the arrangement is an agency one, rather than a lease.

OP rightly needs the information under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 section 3 and Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 section 48, see text of s48 below.

48 Notification by landlord of address for service of notices.

(1) A landlord of premises to which this Part applies shall by notice furnish the tenant with an address in England and Wales at which notices (including notices in proceedings) may be served on him by the tenant.

(2) Where a landlord of any such premises fails to comply with subsection (1), any rent, service charge or administration charge otherwise due from the tenant to the landlord shall (subject to subsection (3)) be treated for all purposes as not being due from the tenant to the landlord at any time before the landlord does comply with that subsection.

(3) Any such rent, service charge or administration charge shall not be so treated in relation to any time when, by virtue of an order of any court or tribunal, there is in force an appointment of a receiver or manager whose functions include the receiving of rent, service charges or (as the case may be) administration charges from the tenant.

If the notices have been given then it is dangerous for OP to withhold rent.

propertyrental

anselld said:

Surely it is simple to determine the new Landlord due to the fact that Landlord status has been acquired through purchase of the property.  Only the entity who purchased the property can be the new Landlord and that is simple to determine.  The management arrangements with individuals and other entities are immaterial.
 

Yes, the correct notices must be served to receive rent but that is all.  Withholding rent if legally compliant notices have been served is dangerous.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the new owner and Landlord being a Company and assuming that is a limited company the ownership and control will be transparent through Companies house.  If you want/need to sue a Limited company you can do.

Unfortunately not that simple. As my post just above yours shows, the new owner could let the property to A N Other (eg the agency or A N Other) on a commercial tenancy (eg 12 months), and that 'tenant' could then sub-let the property under an AST and become the occupier's landlord.

Not that I think that's the case here based on what we've been told.

anselld

propertyrental said:

anselld said:

Surely it is simple to determine the new Landlord due to the fact that Landlord status has been acquired through purchase of the property.  Only the entity who purchased the property can be the new Landlord and that is simple to determine.  The management arrangements with individuals and other entities are immaterial.
 

Yes, the correct notices must be served to receive rent but that is all.  Withholding rent if legally compliant notices have been served is dangerous.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the new owner and Landlord being a Company and assuming that is a limited company the ownership and control will be transparent through Companies house.  If you want/need to sue a Limited company you can do.

Unfortunately not that simple. As my post just above yours shows, the new owner could let the property to A N Other (eg the agency or A N Other) on a commercial tenancy (eg 12 months), and that 'tenant' could then sub-let the property under an AST and become the occupier's landlord.

Not that I think that's the case here based on what we've been told.

 Yes, I see now that is technically a possibility.  Hence the importance of the correct notices being served to clarify matters.

SDLT_Geek

propertyrental said:

anselld said:

Surely it is simple to determine the new Landlord due to the fact that Landlord status has been acquired through purchase of the property.  Only the entity who purchased the property can be the new Landlord and that is simple to determine.  The management arrangements with individuals and other entities are immaterial.
 

Yes, the correct notices must be served to receive rent but that is all.  Withholding rent if legally compliant notices have been served is dangerous.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the new owner and Landlord being a Company and assuming that is a limited company the ownership and control will be transparent through Companies house.  If you want/need to sue a Limited company you can do.

Unfortunately not that simple. As my post just above yours shows, the new owner could let the property to A N Other (eg the agency or A N Other) on a commercial tenancy (eg 12 months), and that 'tenant' could then sub-let the property under an AST and become the occupier's landlord.

Not that I think that's the case here based on what we've been told.

There is a Supreme Court decision today which happens to concern a rent to rent company: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2023/9.pdf 

Woofiedog

propertyrental said:

Woofiedog said:

Does anyone have any legal knowledge of whether I am doing the right thing by keeping back the rent.

Legally speaking you can with hold rent if you've not been served a S48 notice (read the Act). However I suspect you have been. Certainly long ago in the past. They don't become invalid just because of a belief there's ben a change of ownership which you have not been formally advised of.

And indeed you said earlier "The investor recently told me that all notices should be served on the company he is Director of". I asked for a quote so we could comment more authoritatively but .... not forthcoming.

Short of that, no, legally under contract law you should pay your rent.

There are indeed a couple of explanations
* the property might be owned by a company (as the investor has intimated - again, I asked for a quote.....) and the agency might be just that. An agent for the company.
* the property might have been let by the investor or company to the agency, who are subletting to you. In that case, yes, the agent is your landlord, but nothing you have written suggests this.
* The investor might be your landlord (as an individual), but again that does not seem to be the case.

Given that you appear to know at least some of the relevant tenancy law, ad have been referred in this thread to relevant clauses in relevant Acts, why are you not following up on those Acts. They were passed by the government specifically to protect tenants and clarify LLs' obligations!

You said earlier:

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.

but I don't see the relevance. If that company were to do something that warranted legal action (ripped off a customer, broke employment law for an employee, or..... failed to comply with tenancy law regarding a property the company owned), the the injured party (customer, employee, tenant etc) would sue the company.

Not the individual shareholders.

I see your point here. But I am concerned that  the Director would simply withdraw any funds the company had in the account and shut it down and then re-open another in another name, which means I would be chasing compensation until Kingdom come. I worked for a client who got into financial difficulties some time ago, still owing creditors thousands, and they simply shut the company down via Administrators and then opened up another under another name. So I know it can be done.

_Penny_Dreadful

Woofiedog said:

propertyrental said:

Woofiedog said:

Does anyone have any legal knowledge of whether I am doing the right thing by keeping back the rent.

Legally speaking you can with hold rent if you've not been served a S48 notice (read the Act). However I suspect you have been. Certainly long ago in the past. They don't become invalid just because of a belief there's ben a change of ownership which you have not been formally advised of.

And indeed you said earlier "The investor recently told me that all notices should be served on the company he is Director of". I asked for a quote so we could comment more authoritatively but .... not forthcoming.

Short of that, no, legally under contract law you should pay your rent.

There are indeed a couple of explanations
* the property might be owned by a company (as the investor has intimated - again, I asked for a quote.....) and the agency might be just that. An agent for the company.
* the property might have been let by the investor or company to the agency, who are subletting to you. In that case, yes, the agent is your landlord, but nothing you have written suggests this.
* The investor might be your landlord (as an individual), but again that does not seem to be the case.

Given that you appear to know at least some of the relevant tenancy law, ad have been referred in this thread to relevant clauses in relevant Acts, why are you not following up on those Acts. They were passed by the government specifically to protect tenants and clarify LLs' obligations!

You said earlier:

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.

but I don't see the relevance. If that company were to do something that warranted legal action (ripped off a customer, broke employment law for an employee, or..... failed to comply with tenancy law regarding a property the company owned), the the injured party (customer, employee, tenant etc) would sue the company.

Not the individual shareholders.

I see your point here. But I am concerned that  the Director would simply withdraw any funds the company had in the account and shut it down and then re-open another in another name, which means I would be chasing compensation until Kingdom come. I worked for a client who got into financial difficulties some time ago, still owing creditors thousands, and they simply shut the company down via Administrators and then opened up another under another name. So I know it can be done.

You’re worrying about something that may never happen meanwhile you’re the one not paying the rent. It really does seem like you’re getting your knickers in a twist over nothing. 

Woofiedog

SDLT_Geek said:

anselld said:

Surely it is simple to determine the new Landlord due to the fact that Landlord status has been acquired through purchase of the property.  Only the entity who purchased the property can be the new Landlord and that is simple to determine.  The management arrangements with individuals and other entities are immaterial.
 

Yes, the correct notices must be served to receive rent but that is all.  Withholding rent if legally compliant notices have been served is dangerous.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the new owner and Landlord being a Company and assuming that is a limited company the ownership and control will be transparent through Companies house.  If you want/need to sue a Limited company you can do.

I would agree with what you say @anselld, apart from the possibility of the "new owner" who "bought the flat" in September 2022 having granted a lease to another entity (say Company X which seeks to make money by subletting property) for say 6 years.  If that is the case then Company X would be the direct landlord of OP and be entitled to the rent.  The "chain" of interests would be:

1. Freeholder (perhaps a company controlled by the lessees)
2. Long lessee of the flat (the person who OP describes as the "new owner" who "bought the flat" in September 2022
3. Company X
4. OP

The Long lessee or Company X might, or might not, employ an agent to manage their interests, but that is not relevant to OP's concern as to "who is the landlord?", however much decision making power might have been delegated to the agent.  It is none of OP's business what the terms of that deal are, beyond knowing that the arrangement is an agency one, rather than a lease.

OP rightly needs the information under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 section 3 and Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 section 48, see text of s48 below.

48 Notification by landlord of address for service of notices.

(1) A landlord of premises to which this Part applies shall by notice furnish the tenant with an address in England and Wales at which notices (including notices in proceedings) may be served on him by the tenant.

(2) Where a landlord of any such premises fails to comply with subsection (1), any rent, service charge or administration charge otherwise due from the tenant to the landlord shall (subject to subsection (3)) be treated for all purposes as not being due from the tenant to the landlord at any time before the landlord does comply with that subsection.

(3) Any such rent, service charge or administration charge shall not be so treated in relation to any time when, by virtue of an order of any court or tribunal, there is in force an appointment of a receiver or manager whose functions include the receiving of rent, service charges or (as the case may be) administration charges from the tenant.

If the notices have been given then it is dangerous for OP to withhold rent.

_Penny_Dreadful said:

Woofiedog said:

propertyrental said:

Woofiedog said:

Does anyone have any legal knowledge of whether I am doing the right thing by keeping back the rent.

Legally speaking you can with hold rent if you've not been served a S48 notice (read the Act). However I suspect you have been. Certainly long ago in the past. They don't become invalid just because of a belief there's ben a change of ownership which you have not been formally advised of.

And indeed you said earlier "The investor recently told me that all notices should be served on the company he is Director of". I asked for a quote so we could comment more authoritatively but .... not forthcoming.

Short of that, no, legally under contract law you should pay your rent.

There are indeed a couple of explanations
* the property might be owned by a company (as the investor has intimated - again, I asked for a quote.....) and the agency might be just that. An agent for the company.
* the property might have been let by the investor or company to the agency, who are subletting to you. In that case, yes, the agent is your landlord, but nothing you have written suggests this.
* The investor might be your landlord (as an individual), but again that does not seem to be the case.

Given that you appear to know at least some of the relevant tenancy law, ad have been referred in this thread to relevant clauses in relevant Acts, why are you not following up on those Acts. They were passed by the government specifically to protect tenants and clarify LLs' obligations!

You said earlier:

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.

but I don't see the relevance. If that company were to do something that warranted legal action (ripped off a customer, broke employment law for an employee, or..... failed to comply with tenancy law regarding a property the company owned), the the injured party (customer, employee, tenant etc) would sue the company.

Not the individual shareholders.

I see your point here. But I am concerned that  the Director would simply withdraw any funds the company had in the account and shut it down and then re-open another in another name, which means I would be chasing compensation until Kingdom come. I worked for a client who got into financial difficulties some time ago, still owing creditors thousands, and they simply shut the company down via Administrators and then opened up another under another name. So I know it can be done.

You’re worrying about something that may never happen meanwhile you’re the one not paying the rent. It really does seem like you’re getting your knickers in a twist over nothing. 

All the time I do not know who the immediate landlord is for which I could claim RRO's, should I need to do that, I am entitled to keep any monies that might otherwise have formed the rent had those Notices been correctly served.

All I have had is a letter from the Agent tell me to send rent monies to them via bank account they gave me details for (not necessarily the landlord's bank account) and there was nothing in that letter about the serving of Notices. Meanwhile the owner, who I did contact eventually, had not sent me a formal Notice that explained that they were the immediate landlord. Instead, they described the Agency as having that role in practice, would not confirm that this was the case in legal reality, and so has not served me with an informal S.3 or a formal one. I did ask for one and they still haven't.

Meanwhile, the same owner (who I believe is the superior landlord now that they've delegated the immediate landlord task over to what they name as the Agency) is now trying to get me to pay rent they believe I owed the previous landlord to this property, claiming that the previous landlord intends to sue them if I don't pay them - because they've conferred the debt onto them. Yet all paperwork the present owner's stated Agent sent to me initially just said that the rent was payable from the time the new owner had bought the flat, which was confirmed by the previous landlord's solicitor too - not before then. They also sent me a bit of blank paper with some figures on that is supposed to prove that the debt was transferred over, even though I was in dispute with the previous landlord who owed me money.

The whole situation is a massive scam aimed at me : to extract a seamless cashflow of rent from me by expecting me to treat each new owner like one seamless landlord I owe a continuous rent to without pause, whilst not attempting to meet their legal obligations to me about 1. proving who the true immediate landlord is and instead expecting me to believe that owner = immediate landlord even though in practice that seems not to be the case, 2. Not necessarily agreeing to any arrangements that benefitted me I had negotiated with previous landlords, now that they had taken over - including abiding by a Consent Order the courts had set with an older landlord, 2. the most mos recent previus landlord selling a flat from under me to a new owner/investor and agent who appears to be the true immediate landlord in practice, knowing full well the rent was in dispute for good reasons instead of just claiming it from the courts if they felt it was owed to them - effectively passing the problem to this new owner (and without the new owner proving to me convincingly that the old landlord had in fact passed on that debt. The figures the new owner sent were incorrect, it was on blank paper not previous landlord letterhead and it contradicts what the seller's solicitor said was the date the rent would now be due from - which was from not previous to the date they took ownership). So seems to have happened is that the new owner, happy with the price he'd paid for the flat, has since had a discussion with the previous landlord and only with hindsight found out about a dispute they didn't previous learn about before pruchasing the flat and now they think they can come after me for any perceived rents owing, based on a loose guestimate of the figures. Like heck they can!!

housebuyer143

All I can say is thank God we don't have rent act tenancies anymore. If this is anything to go by no one in their right mind would ever rent their property out ever. 
Lots to this story being omitted tbh. Most people would just pay the rent to their new agent on confirmation of the sale. New owners details can be found at the land registry if the OP was really that concerned.