Renting a property, received a repossession order

bananakinz

The contract was renewed in beginning of Feb, but she has not had any notice from her ll, so assumed it would 'roll over' like it did last year.

epz_2

bananakinz wrote: »

The contract was renewed in beginning of Feb, but she has not had any notice from her ll, so assumed it would 'roll over' like it did last year.

so shes screwed then, its up to the small claims court and trying to get money out of someone who has just had their home reposessed.

silvercar has some point about the bank possibly comming after you for not paying rent (though i doubt it) but i was more thinking about stopping paying rent too the landlord. a repo will take months and i doubt he would come after you if they owe you cash.

i know plenty of places that will rent to folk's with bad credit(plenty dont even check), NONE with no deposit.

so anybody thats got a better idea of how to avoid the op's sister loseing her deposit and potentially not beeing able to rent elsewhere please feel free to keep calling me an idiot otherwise i will assume you apologise.

Colincbayley

Rick62 wrote: »

Why could any rent arrears be chased by the lender? There is no contract between the lender and tenant. The tenant owes the LL rent, but if the LL is holding deposit monies the tenant probably won't get these back. ( Incorrect, there is an AST agreement between the LL and the tenant. Under the terms of this contract the LL must repay the deposit to the tenant within a reasonable time at the end of the tenancy, subject to any allowed deductions. The LL can not just hold onto the deposit. If he does, then it is a matter for the small claims court )

All deposits are now to be held by a trust or insured under the new government scheme. ( Only for AST's dated after April 2007 where a deposit is taken, Any contract prior to this date is not required to be protected, Refer to the 2004 housing act )The tenant should ask for confirmation that this has been done. They should take legal advice, but from a practical point of view withholding rent and writing to the LL saying that the tenant is withholding the rent until they have proof that the deposits are being indepedantly held would seem sensible and reasonable.

The best advise for the OP is to start looking for another place to live and to abide by the terms of their AST.

Colincbayley

epz wrote: »

i know plenty of places that will rent to folk's with bad credit(plenty dont even check), NONE with no deposit.

As a professional landlord I would always look at the full circumstances of a tenant.
I would rent to someone with CCJ's / bad credit and due to the farse of the 2004 housing act regarding deposit I know do not ask for deposit at all.

So epz you are incorrect in saying that it is not possible to rent with no deposit.

epz_2

Colincbayley wrote: »

As a professional landlord I would always look at the full circumstances of a tenant.
I would rent to someone with CCJ's / bad credit and due to the farse of the 2004 housing act regarding deposit I know do not ask for deposit at all.

So epz you are incorrect in saying that it is not possible to rent with no deposit.

i said i didnt know of any and ive been looking about, im sure there will be some places but it will be pretty low % that will. this means the ops sister will either have to pay more or move to somewhere less than ideal.

please remember the ops sister is on benifits so its not like she will have wads of cash to save up a new deposit.

silvercar

February contract renewal means there was no obligation to protect the deposit.

The lender, after repossession, or the landlord would need to give 2 months written notice, to end on a rent day, to quit. I would expect that following repossession that is what will happen. So presuming repossession doesn't actually happen in the next week, the lender won't give notice before beginning of January so it will actually be beginning of Feb + 2 months ie beginning of April that your sister will be told she has to leave the property.

By that time the property could well have been sold so there are 2 options, either the new owner will be happy to have your sister as a tenant or tey will want the property for themselves. If the latter your sister could either find somewhere else to live or play hard ball and refuse to leave. At which point the new owner (or the lender if it still hasn't been sold) could go to court to get an eviction notice.

As for the rent, this is still due. Failure to pay could result in action taken against your sister, even after she is out of the property.

As for returning the deposit, this would mean going after the landlord. Just because he has allowed the property to be repossessed doesn't mean he doesn't have other assets eg a home of his own. Chasing for the deposit return can start immediately after repossession.

RHemmings

silvercar wrote: »

As for returning the deposit, this would mean going after the landlord. Just because he has allowed the property to be repossessed doesn't mean he doesn't have other assets eg a home of his own. Chasing for the deposit return can start immediately after repossession.

There may well still be equity in the home being repossessed.

barnaby-bear

silvercar wrote: »

February contract renewal means there was no obligation to protect the deposit.

The lender, after repossession, or the landlord would need to give 2 months written notice, to end on a rent day, to quit.

I hate to point this out but there is a reasonable chance it isn't a BTL mortgage and if the landlord's been fiddling it as a residential then it can literally be a case (as happened to a friend) of get out now (they had an hour to stick stickers on their possessions to distinguish them from LLs) if not a BTL mortgage there isn't an AST and it isn't an eviction. The fact the lender wrote to the occupier is worrying as a BTL mortgage usually requires the tenant details / AST to be lodged with the lender. If it isn't a BTL mortgage then the tenant has no valid AST so it may affect their rent paying obligations and their homelessness status. You really need to find out how shonky the LL is.

HugoSP

barnaby-bear wrote: »

I hate to point this out but there is a reasonable chance it isn't a BTL mortgage ......... The fact the lender wrote to the occupier is worrying as a BTL mortgage usually requires the tenant details / AST to be lodged with the lender. If it isn't a BTL mortgage then the tenant has no valid AST so it may affect their rent paying obligations and their homelessness status. You really need to find out how shonky the LL is.

Sorry that isn't correct.

We do not have to give our btl lender the tenants' details. All they require is for us to meet the mortgage payments.

If they wrote to the occupier, this could be for either one of two reasons.

The mortgage is a btl mortgage

The mortgage is not a btl mortgage and the lender knows that the borrower does not live there, and that tenants do.

silvercar

I don't see how a lender could get away with:

The mortgage is not a btl mortgage and the lender knows that the borrower does not live there, and that tenants do.

Earlier on in the thread it has been said that they think it is a BTL mortgage, the fact that the lender wrote to the property backs that up.

Lender's don't require tenants details. When the mortgage first completes the tenant won' yet have been issued with an AST, and the tenancy could have changed since the mortgage was taken out.

I think we all agree that the tenant should (today) be informing the lender of their presence.

RHemmings wrote:

There may well still be equity in the home being repossessed.

Good point, all the more reason to assume that it should be possible for the tenant to retrieve the deposit.

No doubting the tenant is in the unfortunate position of uncertainty. The tenant needs to protect herself as much as possible and the withholding rent arguement could result in the tenant being chased for money. Also there is a chance that the repossession won't proceed.