Supreme Court ruling explains who is my landlord

jimbo6977

Sounds like the court has upheld a slumlords charter, just set up a bunch of brass plates with no assets, the physical tennants are contracted to an assetless brass plate, the physical landlord is absolved of all responsibility/liability. Kerrching. 

propertyrental

jimbo6977 said:

Sounds like the court has upheld a slumlords charter, just set up a bunch of brass plates with no assets, the physical tennants are contracted to an assetless brass plate, the physical landlord is absolved of all responsibility/liability. Kerrching. 

No idea how you reach that conclusion. There's a landlord, who receives rent. In return he provides a flat (or whatever) and is responsible for maintaining it. He can be sued, and he can have the rent forcible returned.

Whether he's a freeholder, leaseholder, sub-lessor or something else is immaterial.

jimbo6977

propertyrental said:

jimbo6977 said:

Sounds like the court has upheld a slumlords charter, just set up a bunch of brass plates with no assets, the physical tennants are contracted to an assetless brass plate, the physical landlord is absolved of all responsibility/liability. Kerrching. 

No idea how you reach that conclusion. There's a landlord, who receives rent. In return he provides a flat (or whatever) and is responsible for maintaining it. He can be sued, and he can have the rent forcible returned.

Whether he's a freeholder, leaseholder, sub-lessor or something else is immaterial.

If "he" is a brass plate Ltd Co with no assets, "he" can't be forced to return anything, because "he" has nothing.

sourpuss2021

jimbo6977 said:

propertyrental said:

jimbo6977 said:

Sounds like the court has upheld a slumlords charter, just set up a bunch of brass plates with no assets, the physical tennants are contracted to an assetless brass plate, the physical landlord is absolved of all responsibility/liability. Kerrching. 

No idea how you reach that conclusion. There's a landlord, who receives rent. In return he provides a flat (or whatever) and is responsible for maintaining it. He can be sued, and he can have the rent forcible returned.

Whether he's a freeholder, leaseholder, sub-lessor or something else is immaterial.

If "he" is a brass plate Ltd Co with no assets, "he" can't be forced to return anything, because "he" has nothing.

Think I’ve tracked down OP’s landlord!:

LegallyLandlord

This case  is about a rent to rent arrangement where someone took out an assured short hold tenancy agreement with a landlord, and then illegally sublet it to sharers without getting an HMO licence and without the landlord knowing. 

As this involved a breach of the law, the tenants were about to claim a repayment of part of the rent (a rent repayment order). They tried to claim the repayment from the top landlord, and the Supreme Court said no. A landlord can’t repay something they had never been paid. 

This is quite a specific case. If you let through a letting agent, and they sign on behalf of a landlord, it’s not rent to rent. 

If you’d like to know more, this post explains it:

https://theindependentlandlord.com/resources/property-investors-glossary/rent-to-rent/