Supreme Court ruling explains who is my landlord

MikeJXE

Reading the BBC news came across this 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64811243

So my tenancy agreement is signed by the finder agent and not my landlord who is declared in the agreement 

What implication for both parties ?

user1977

MikeJXE said:

Reading the BBC news came across this 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64811243

So my tenancy agreement is signed by the finder agent and not my landlord who is declared in the agreement 

What implication for both parties ?

No, I can't see anything relevant there about agents. It's about liability where there is sub-letting going on.

BikingBud

user1977 said:

MikeJXE said:

Reading the BBC news came across this 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64811243

So my tenancy agreement is signed by the finder agent and not my landlord who is declared in the agreement 

What implication for both parties ?

No, I can't see anything relevant there about agents. It's about liability where there is sub-letting going on.

Seems like an excellent judgment:
He said the ruling makes clear that rent-to-rent companies acting as a landlord need to make sure that relevant legal requirements are met.

"It is simply not right that such companies can take money from people without any responsibility for the property they are running," he said.

👍👍

MikeJXE

user1977 said:

MikeJXE said:

Reading the BBC news came across this 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64811243

So my tenancy agreement is signed by the finder agent and not my landlord who is declared in the agreement 

What implication for both parties ?

No, I can't see anything relevant there about agents. It's about liability where there is sub-letting going on.

The ruling is about who is your landlord and it states the person who signed the agreement 

An EA signed my agreement but also disclosed who the landlord is in the agreement 

So who is my landlord when the agreement says its the owner of the property yet is signed by the agent who the court says is my landlord ? 

They cant both be right 

SDLT_Geek

The court decision can be found here: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2023/9.pdf

I am not sure it refers at all to "the person who signed the agreement".  That is just a journalist shorthand perhaps to refer to a person's immediate landlord, who might be different to the owner of the property, as is the case where there is a "rent-to-rent" arrangement in place.

Schwarzwald

MikeJXE said:

user1977 said:

MikeJXE said:

Reading the BBC news came across this 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64811243

So my tenancy agreement is signed by the finder agent and not my landlord who is declared in the agreement 

What implication for both parties ?

No, I can't see anything relevant there about agents. It's about liability where there is sub-letting going on.

...it states the person who signed the agreement....

where does the ruling say that exactly?

MikeJXE said:

user1977 said:

MikeJXE said:

Reading the BBC news came across this 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64811243

So my tenancy agreement is signed by the finder agent and not my landlord who is declared in the agreement 

What implication for both parties ?

No, I can't see anything relevant there about agents. It's about liability where there is sub-letting going on.

An EA signed my agreement but also disclosed who the landlord is in the agreement 

So who is my landlord when the agreement says its the owner of the property yet is signed by the agent who the court says is my landlord ? 

the EA acted as an agent of the Landlord by signing your agreement.

in the RRO case the Imminent Landlord didnt act as an agent of the Superior Landlord, it acted as its own principal vis a vis the tenants.

to me the court ruling makes perfect sense and clarifies who is liable vis a via a tenant.

MikeJXE

Schwarzwald said:

MikeJXE said:

user1977 said:

MikeJXE said:

Reading the BBC news came across this 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64811243

So my tenancy agreement is signed by the finder agent and not my landlord who is declared in the agreement 

What implication for both parties ?

No, I can't see anything relevant there about agents. It's about liability where there is sub-letting going on.

...it states the person who signed the agreement....

where does the ruling say that exactly?

MikeJXE said:

user1977 said:

MikeJXE said:

Reading the BBC news came across this 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64811243

So my tenancy agreement is signed by the finder agent and not my landlord who is declared in the agreement 

What implication for both parties ?

No, I can't see anything relevant there about agents. It's about liability where there is sub-letting going on.

An EA signed my agreement but also disclosed who the landlord is in the agreement 

So who is my landlord when the agreement says its the owner of the property yet is signed by the agent who the court says is my landlord ? 

the EA acted as an agent of the Landlord by signing your agreement.

in the RRO case the Imminent Landlord didnt act as an agent of the Superior Landlord, it acted as its own principal vis a vis the tenants.

to me the court ruling makes perfect sense and clarifies who is liable vis a via a tenant.

Copy from the BBC articulated. 

A legal bid to protect tenants from so called "ghost landlords" has failed, in a move that could have significant implications for people looking to claim their rent back if they live in bad conditions.

In a landmark ruling the Supreme Court stated that a landlord is the person a tenant signs their contract with, and not the property's owner

So is the BBC wrong too 

propertyrental

MikeJXE said:

Schwarzwald said:

MikeJXE said:

user1977 said:

MikeJXE said:

Reading the BBC news came across this 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64811243

So my tenancy agreement is signed by the finder agent and not my landlord who is declared in the agreement 

What implication for both parties ?

No, I can't see anything relevant there about agents. It's about liability where there is sub-letting going on.

...it states the person who signed the agreement....

where does the ruling say that exactly?

MikeJXE said:

user1977 said:

MikeJXE said:

Reading the BBC news came across this 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64811243

So my tenancy agreement is signed by the finder agent and not my landlord who is declared in the agreement 

What implication for both parties ?

No, I can't see anything relevant there about agents. It's about liability where there is sub-letting going on.

An EA signed my agreement but also disclosed who the landlord is in the agreement 

So who is my landlord when the agreement says its the owner of the property yet is signed by the agent who the court says is my landlord ? 

the EA acted as an agent of the Landlord by signing your agreement.

in the RRO case the Imminent Landlord didnt act as an agent of the Superior Landlord, it acted as its own principal vis a vis the tenants.

to me the court ruling makes perfect sense and clarifies who is liable vis a via a tenant.

Copy from the BBC articulated. 

A legal bid to protect tenants from so called "ghost landlords" has failed, in a move that could have significant implications for people looking to claim their rent back if they live in bad conditions.

In a landmark ruling the Supreme Court stated that a landlord is the person a tenant signs their contract with, and not the property's owner

So is the BBC wrong too 

Yes. Use the actual court ruling as your definitive source, not a (often non-legally trained) journalist's interpretation!

Nowhere do I see "a landlord is the person a tenant signs their contract with, and not the property's owner".

The case relates to a situation where sub-letting exists: A (owner) lets to B (company) so A is B's landlord. B sublets to C (occupant) so B is C's landlord. C's rights and obligations are to B (not A the 'higher landlord').

Nowhere does the judgement refer to agents acting on behalf of landlords.

Now - we still lack information on the OP's situation, and it is possible that the new owner of the property let the property to the letting agent who sub-let to the OP and the letting agent would thus be OP's landlord.

OP has no suggestion, far less evidence of this.

But equally (or more) likely, the owner, or more likely still his company, let directly to the OP, using the letting agent to act on his behalf, including signing on his behalf.

This is has been explained earlier in the thread and is in no way contradicted by this judgement.

Clutching at legal straws I fear......

sourpuss2021

Here is how that should have been written:

In a landmark ruling the Supreme Court stated that the landlord is whichever person or entity is named as landlord on the tenant’s contract, and not necessarily the property's owner.

eddddy

MikeJXE said:

Copy from the BBC articulated. 

A legal bid to protect tenants from so called "ghost landlords" has failed, in a move that could have significant implications for people looking to claim their rent back if they live in bad conditions.

In a landmark ruling the Supreme Court stated that a landlord is the person a tenant signs their contract with, and not the property's owner

So is the BBC wrong too 

You're taking what the BBC are saying a bit too literally. (And you're missing the point of the article.)

Your landlord is the person named as landlord on your tenancy agreement. You are signing a contract with that person.

A letting agent (or somebody else) might sign the tenancy on the landlord's behalf. But that doesn't make them your landlord.


(Just like if Nationwide send you a letter saying they'll lend you £100k. The letter might be signed by somebody called "Joe Smith" on behalf of Nationwide.  But it doesn't mean that Joe Smith is lending you £100k)


The BBC article is saying that where the person named as your landlord on your tenancy agreement isn't the property owner - then the person named on your tenancy agreement has all the legal responsibilities of being your landlord. The person who owns the property has no legal responsibilities for you.  

macman

A lot of landlords are resident outside the UK. They will have granted the LA the power to sign such documentation on their behalf: perfectly normal. They remain the legal landlord.