Rolling AST and Change of Ownership of Rented Property

YorkshireTyke69

Hi everyone. I have been on a rolling minth AST since my 12 month agreement finished 4 years ago. I am currently in dispute with my landlord iver rental increase which goes to Tribunal on 14th May after a visit on the 13th. Doing a bit of digging I have found that the ownership of my building has changed in name, same directors.

My question is am I still bound by the rolling month AST under the previous ownership or are the terms of my AST automatically transferred to the new ownership?

TIA

anselld

Has your actual Landlord (named on the tenancy) changed?  “Building ownership” and Landlord are not necessarily the same thing.  If Landlord has changed rent should not be paid until a valid Section 3 notice is received notifying of the new Landlord details.

However, regardless of the above, your tenancy contract remains valid and unaffected by any change of Landlord.  Tribunal can proceed normally.  Hopefully you are putting aside the increase amount since if you lose the rent increase will be backdated.

YorkshireTyke69

I only signed one tenancy agreement at the start of my stay, after the tenancy expired I insisted on a rolling month contract. My tenancy had one company name on it and the Section 13 has another company name on it. I have checked companies house and the directors of both of the companies are the same. 2 people have 50 ordinary shares in the LLC.

propertyrental

The ownership of the building (freeholder?) is irrelevant. Almost certainly the flat, as opposed to the building) will have a leaseholder, who is likely to be your landlord.

Though even that is not certain. Your landlord could be someone else.

So a change in ownership of the building's freeholder can be ignored.

Indeed, unless the leaseholder is named as your landlord on your tenancy agreement, a change in ownership of the leaseholder can also be ignored.

All that matters is your named landlord on your tenancy agreement. If that person changes, then 
a) your periodic tenancy is unaltered- it continues as before, though with a new landlord
b) the new landlord has to inform you, in writing. See

Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 S3

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.

If the S13 Notice has a different named landlord to that on your tenancy agreement, and you've not had a S3 notification, it may be invalid. Worth contesting...

YorkshireTyke69

It is not a named landlord as in a perosn, firstly it was Montis Propert Group now it is Columbus Property UK Ltd.

I can confirm the landlord and building owner are the same.

YorkshireTyke69

 If the S13 Notice has a different named landlord to that on your tenancy agreement, and you've not had a S3 notification, it may be invalid. Worth contesting...

It is a different company on both documents and I never received notification of the change.

I will be contesting the S13 Notice, because there is what possibly could be a technicality in so much that the accompanying letter to the S13 Notice used my correct postal address as listed in all documentation and Royal Mail Postcode finder but there is an omission of part of the address on the S13 Notice

propertyrental

YorkshireTyke69 said:

It is not a named landlord as in a perosn, firstly it was Montis Propert Group now it is Columbus Property UK Ltd.

I can confirm the landlord and building owner are the same.

A landlord can be an individual, two or more joint individuals, or a company. Makes no difference.

But whichever, the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 S3 still applies.

As already explained, the building owner is irrelevant.

YorkshireTyke69 said:

 If the S13 Notice has a different named landlord to that on your tenancy agreement, and you've not had a S3 notification, it may be invalid. Worth contesting...

I will be contesting the S13 Notice, because there is what possibly could be a technicality in so much that the accompanying letter to the S13 Notice used my correct postal address as listed in all documentation and Royal Mail Postcode finder but there is an omission of part of the address on the S13 Notice

I doubt the omission of part of the address would invalidate the S13.That would be a simple administrative error (or shorthand) provided it is clear what property is meant. 

theartfullodger

YorkshireTyke69 said:

It is not a named landlord as in a perosn, firstly it was Montis Propert Group now it is Columbus Property UK Ltd.

I can confirm the landlord and building owner are the same.

Understand but if Columbus (as owner /  landlord) grant a tenancy to Montis (as tenant) which permits Montis to rent to you that's all legal and YOUR landlord hasn't changed.

Suggest a calm polite letter/email to Montis asking for clarification if who is current landlord.

If landlord has changed, unless you've had s3 and s48 notice(s) served on you then there may be a criminal offence & fines (s3) plus no rent due (!) -s48.  But don't spend it all at once as as soon as valid notice (s) served all back rent becomes due.

Best wishes & good luck.  Sounds like they don't know what they are doing 

Artful: Landlord since 2000

YorkshireTyke69

Montis has been struck off by companies house, Columbus are the present and active company, research from Companies House shows "Charge Notice" which details the funding Montis received to but the leasehold.

The directors of each of the companies are the same. My S13 Notice detailed Columbus as my landlord.

A polite letter isnt going to work because they are refusing to tell me who supplies my water, as the water company you'd expect to be my supplier have no record on residential or business database for the whole building and 12 flats within it.

I pay or am supposed to pay £25 per month for water, this is in an appendix to the tenancy agreement when I moved in. I am disputing this charge. All this leads me to believe there is something not quite right. Why wont they tell me who the supplier is and have categorically stated that I am not to have a water meter installed.

I have a friend in the building who has over 6 months on their agreement who legally can have a meter installed if the fitting of the meter does not involve extensive work to install it. In this instance a meter can be installed very easily.

My instincts tell me that they are using the previous water feed which was for 4 flats, split it into 12, charging the tenants for the water and pocketing the money.

MobileSaver

propertyrental said:

YorkshireTyke69 said:

 If the S13 Notice has a different named landlord to that on your tenancy agreement, and you've not had a S3 notification, it may be invalid. Worth contesting...

I will be contesting the S13 Notice, because there is what possibly could be a technicality in so much that the accompanying letter to the S13 Notice used my correct postal address as listed in all documentation and Royal Mail Postcode finder but there is an omission of part of the address on the S13 Notice

I doubt the omission of part of the address would invalidate the S13.That would be a simple administrative error (or shorthand) provided it is clear what property is meant.

Agreed, the normal rule is that the notice is valid unless the omission genuinely caused you to be misled or confused as to its purpose. Pertinently, did the S13 Notice actually reach you despite the "incomplete" address?

In general courts do not like technicalities and trivialities and if the omission is really trivial they may decide you have acted unreasonably, have wasted the Tribunal's and Landlord's time and therefore award costs against you...

YorkshireTyke69

The Tribunal is specifically about the rental increase they are trying to impose on me. I live in a 2 bedroom flat in a small town near Pontefract and the rent is £650 per month, the increase is to be £708 per month when the average rental for a similar property is less than £650 per month, 2 bed houses with garden space are on the market for less. 

CAB advised to check the Section 13 Notice, for any information that may be inaccurate even down to checking the form the Notice was filled out on. This is not a court case but a Tribunal to determine the rent, no costs have been incurred by any party and the Tribunals decision is final.

The notice did reach me yes.