Inheriting rental property, letting agent clauses?

sammyantha19

Thank you. 

I am going to ask for the previous contract to see where I stand. I’m pleased the funds are released now so that’s a huge burden done. 

They are pressing for me to sign a new contract and to get the rear property rented out.  

It is unclear if 

1- I could have let the rear property out when the last tenant moved (I was told they could not rent out until probate) 
2- of the pick and choose tactics for repairs/payment for certifications etc is some grounds for poor agent service to mitigate the fees for exit. 

3- not pressed on previous tenant to maintain the garden as per contract..(they sent me a snippet of the terms from one section to prove it is the tenants responsibility)… I’ve paid circa 3k to bring the garden to a manageable level….. (I believe it’s over grown again….. yet agent has done nothing? 

these factors I believe are reasons the agent have not fulfilled their duties so If they want 6 months agent fees or more then I think that is where I wish to fight and say no with the catalogue of mis handling. 

doodling

Hi,

Bookworm105 said:

doodling said:

Hi,

Some random thoughts:

1. Assuming the will is valid then the executor became the legal owner of the estate (and in this case consequently the landlord and the agent's principal) from the moment of death.

The estate remains legal owner until the executor transfers legal ownership into the names of the beneficiaries.
The executor is never the legal owner of the estate, the executor is merely the duly appointed administrator of the estate and their legal capacity is that of bare trustee on behalf of the estate until such time as the estate is distributed and thus extinguished.

Sorry but that is not correct.

The estate is not a legal person so cannot own anything.

A trustee legally (but generally not beneficially) owns the assets in a trust so if you are saying that the executor is a trustee then they must be the legal owner of the estate.

It is established law that where an executor is named in a valid will, they are the legal owner of the estate (on trust for the beneficiaries) from the moment of death (and can act from that point).  It should be noted that that trusteeship (and hence legal ownership) is contingent on there being no successful challenge to the will (so can exist in something of a state of flux).  Of course, some entities (notably the Land Registry) want a probate court to confirm who the executor is before they will accept the executors' legal ownership but that is a formality, it does not change the position.

Feel free to Google if you don't believe me.

Whilst it is even more off topic than the above discussion, what I've never quite got to the bottom of is who owns an intestate estate but I think that is a discussion for a different thread.

Bookworm105

doodling said:

Hi,

Bookworm105 said:

doodling said:

Hi,

Some random thoughts:

1. Assuming the will is valid then the executor became the legal owner of the estate (and in this case consequently the landlord and the agent's principal) from the moment of death.

The estate remains legal owner until the executor transfers legal ownership into the names of the beneficiaries.
The executor is never the legal owner of the estate, the executor is merely the duly appointed administrator of the estate and their legal capacity is that of bare trustee on behalf of the estate until such time as the estate is distributed and thus extinguished.

Sorry but that is not correct.

The estate is not a legal person so cannot own anything.

A trustee legally (but generally not beneficially) owns the assets in a trust so if you are saying that the executor is a trustee then they must be the legal owner of the estate.

It is established law that where an executor is named in a valid will, they are the legal owner of the estate (on trust for the beneficiaries) from the moment of death (and can act from that point).  It should be noted that that trusteeship (and hence legal ownership) is contingent on there being no successful challenge to the will (so can exist in something of a state of flux).  Of course, some entities (notably the Land Registry) want a probate court to confirm who the executor is before they will accept the executors' legal ownership but that is a formality, it does not change the position.

Feel free to Google if you don't believe me.

Whilst it is even more off topic than the above discussion, what I've never quite got to the bottom of is who owns an intestate estate but I think that is a discussion for a different thread.

no, the executor's capacity is that of bare trustee, they do not legally own anything in their own name, which is what your comment implied.

the executor is (personally) responsible for the assets of the estate but does NOT own them. The executor is the personal representative of the estate

feel free to educate yourself on whether a will establishes a bare trust or an interest in possession trust (there are no other options)

as for intestacy, feel free to educate yourself on the VERY RIGID rules of who gets what (and ultimately bona vacantia)

doodling

Hi,

sammyantha19 said:

Thank you. 

I am going to ask for the previous contract to see where I stand. I’m pleased the funds are released now so that’s a huge burden done. 

They are pressing for me to sign a new contract and to get the rear property rented out.  

It is unclear if 

1- I could have let the rear property out when the last tenant moved (I was told they could not rent out until probate) 
2- of the pick and choose tactics for repairs/payment for certifications etc is some grounds for poor agent service to mitigate the fees for exit. 

3- not pressed on previous tenant to maintain the garden as per contract..(they sent me a snippet of the terms from one section to prove it is the tenants responsibility)… I’ve paid circa 3k to bring the garden to a manageable level….. (I believe it’s over grown again….. yet agent has done nothing? 

these factors I believe are reasons the agent have not fulfilled their duties so If they want 6 months agent fees or more then I think that is where I wish to fight and say no with the catalogue of mis handling. 

If they are pressing you to sign a contract then I would be tempted to suggest to them that that is indicative that there is no contract in place at the moment and therefore the contract must already be terminated.

I would definitely try an approach where you argue that they refused to act as agent during the time they did not accept your instructions and consequently are not due their fee.  That is not a robust argument as they will argue that they did do some work (e.g. collect rent, hassle you for repairs, etc.) so perhaps some element of fee is due.

This is something that you do not want to go to court over without legal advice as I am very uncertain as to the legal robustness of some of my suggestions.  That doesn't stop you making a complaint through any ombudsmen type processes that might be available to you though.

joannejohnston

Hi
I am in a similar situation. I have inherited a rental property and the letting agent is holding on to the rent that has accrued for 6 months? Despite having had death cert and grant of probate 2 months ago as I am also executor. They are now asking for other paperwork including copy of the will but not sure if this is just to be nosy? Where do I stand legally? I am going to continue renting the property, for a while anyway (and I have even paid and applied for a selective licence from the council despite not being the person receiving the rent) and am willing to sign a short term contract but they haven't even asked me to do this? What should my next steps be?

theartfullodger

Whatever else you do (sorry for your story) get educated on being a landlord. NRLA (I don;t like them but they exist & run...)
https://www.nrla.org.uk/training-academy/core-courses/landlords-fundamentals

Way way cheaper in time & money than the alternative (ignorance..)

FlorayG

OP absolutely do not sign anything! Definitely speak to a solicitor or at least join NRLA as they have a free advice line. You need a solicitor who understands probate, so probably the one you are currently dealing with would be knowledgeable.
The job of the executor is to manage the disposal of the estate in a way that maximises the benefits to the beneficiaries. I would think that 'not letting the vacant property' ( as you were told you couldn't) would not be doing this, so I would think the letting agent may be completely wrong