1977 Rent Act Tenancy - Nightmare Situation

Woofiedog

sourpuss2021 said:

So does this mean your tenancy began before 1977?

And you were really never in the position of being able to buy your flat from the landlord, rather than paying rent all these years?

After all the property presumably wasn’t worth more than tuppence ha’hapenny back then…

The son of my first landlord who gave me the letting, and who inherited the entire house now subdivided into flats, offered me first refusal of the flat first. I couldn't afford it and couldn't get a mortgage being unemployed at the time. Then he sold it at auction for less than he was prepared to offer me for it. I was furious as I could have afforded the sum he did accept - only from a third party - but not from me. He said that I was the main beneficiary of having a sitting tenant, as the sitting tenant, so I had to pay more than anyone else he sold it to. So I lost the chance to buy it. Now the flat has changed hands again at well over twice that offer price and the RCO maximum is now starting to feel uncomfortably high.

Woofiedog

housebuyer143 said:

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.

The purchaser's address on his emails to me matches a google address of the same name which has closed down permanently.

The purchaser is not necessarily the immediate landlord, which is the landlord that matters. Not the superior landlord who may be the purchaser but not the liable party if they have sub-let to the agency who only admits to being the agent not the real immediate landlord. 

If the courts were to deduce that both parties are liable, in the absence of any clear party who is, and I was entitled to compensation, then the purchaser could simply withdraw the funds from the company that bought the flat, then shut it down, leaving the other party to take the full hit. Then a legal wrangle between them could ensue and I wouldn't get my money for years, if at all. Meanwhile, out of frustration, I would be tempted to withhold the rent instead. Then the superior landlord just sells the flat on and the debt to a new landlord, leaving me strung out for compo and having to go through a whole new rent withdrawal headache with an innocent new landlord/purchaser.

That is why it is important to gain clarity and to establish liability from the start. So that attempted fraud can be established from the get go.

Woofiedog

housebuyer143 said:

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.

The purchaser didn't rent the property to me. I was already renting it when they purchased it. The dynamic is entirely different.

ManuelG

Woofiedog said:

sourpuss2021 said:

So does this mean your tenancy began before 1977?

And you were really never in the position of being able to buy your flat from the landlord, rather than paying rent all these years?

After all the property presumably wasn’t worth more than tuppence ha’hapenny back then…

The son of my first landlord who gave me the letting, and who inherited the entire house now subdivided into flats, offered me first refusal of the flat first. I couldn't afford it and couldn't get a mortgage being unemployed at the time. Then he sold it at auction for less than he was prepared to offer me for it. I was furious as I could have afforded the sum he did accept - only from a third party - but not from me. He said that I was the main beneficiary of having a sitting tenant, as the sitting tenant, so I had to pay more than anyone else he sold it to. So I lost the chance to buy it. Now the flat has changed hands again at well over twice that offer price and the RCO maximum is now starting to feel uncomfortably high.

What stopped you from bidding at that auction?

Elliott.T123

Woofiedog said:

The purchaser's address on his emails to me matches a google address of the same name which has closed down permanently.

The purchaser is not necessarily the immediate landlord, which is the landlord that matters. Not the superior landlord who may be the purchaser but not the liable party if they have sub-let to the agency who only admits to being the agent not the real immediate landlord. 

If the courts were to deduce that both parties are liable, in the absence of any clear party who is, and I was entitled to compensation, then the purchaser could simply withdraw the funds from the company that bought the flat, then shut it down, leaving the other party to take the full hit. Then a legal wrangle between them could ensue and I wouldn't get my money for years, if at all. Meanwhile, out of frustration, I would be tempted to withhold the rent instead. Then the superior landlord just sells the flat on and the debt to a new landlord, leaving me strung out for compo and having to go through a whole new rent withdrawal headache with an innocent new landlord/purchaser.

That is why it is important to gain clarity and to establish liability from the start. So that attempted fraud can be established from the get go.

From this reply it sounds like your real issue isn't finding out who your landlord actually is but more that you are not happy with the landlord you have and are looking for a grey area to claim that instead someone else is your landlord.

From the information you have given I think it is fairly apparent that your landlord is the company the purchaser is a director of (I suspect the property was purchased via the company as well).

Your issue seems to be that as your landlord is a Ltd Company if anything were to go wrong the company could be dissolved.... T

LunaLater

You do seem to be doing everything you can to wriggle out of paying any rent at all for a property in which you were living.

Hopefully this will provide a route for your landlord to terminate the tenancy, which it seems at present neither you nor they are happy with.

Have you really spent 45 years living in a flat in a subdivided house?

diggingdude

I was sympathetic until the end of page 3. Now it feels like you are trying to not pay rent and I do wonder what compensation scam you are planning. Pay for a solicitor to write to all parties asking for clarification before rent will be paid. This will cost you but will be worth it for your mental health 

Woofiedog

I have been in dispute with my landlord for six months now, scrupulously keeping back the rent and putting it into a separate account referenced 'landlord rent'. I am a 1977 Rent Act tenant (which is not in dispute). The new landlord has not seen fit to nor will they send me a proper legally binding s.48 change of landlord notice that makes clear that the immediate landlord is 'blah blah' and saying that all notices including legal ones are to be sent to this address (landlord or agents). So I within my rights. Why they are rufusing is mind boggling.

I know that if this new owner/agent dual act do send me one that I will need to pay it all over to them. In the meantime, as an over 60 year old with a private pension who can pay out without penalty, would it be legal for me to transfer these funds over to my pension fund first, just to get the tax relief on it and then drawdown the amount at 25% tax free to pay it over when the time comes - giving me a 25% boost to my pension before handing it over. That will help cover the rent hike I got last year which was very high compared to what it normally was. If t his is legal, I plan to continue doing that going forward too, when I pay the rent regularly over to them monthly: put the rent into the pension, draw it out again so that I can benefit from tax relief on the rent from my money that will then be paid to the landlord - to help me cover my rental hikes.

doodling

Hi,

Leaving aside whether you are right to withhold rent which is discussed in another thread, providing that the money is readily accessible so that you can pay it when it is required then it doesn't matter how you hold it.

Note that the maximum you can put into a pension in a tax year and get tax relief is the lower of £60k (from 5th April, 40k this tax year), your salary (if working) and £3600 (if not working).

Also note that getting a payment out of your pension might take longer than it would be reasonable for someone to wait one you are required to pay the money - I would check to see how quickly you can take a payment from your pension.

TonyMMM

I think this was covered (at length) in a previous thread ...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6427849/1977-rent-act-tenancy-nightmare-situation/p1