Intermediate landlord times out before hearing

Lost_Property · 13 October 2018 at 8:31PM

What happens if an owner leases to an intermediate non-resident landliord who rents out rooms on ASTs but as the lease approaches expiry the intermediate tries to evict the tenants yet fails to get hearing dates in time?

At the hearing is the application invalid if the intermediate lease has not been renewed? Or does the original owner "inherit" the partially done proceedings and take over the process? And do any arrears remain with the intermediate guy?

Lost_Property · 13 October 2018 at 8:33PM

I should clarify that the subletting is with the owner's consent, as the lease is some kind of "guaranteed" rent scheme.

G_M · 13 October 2018 at 8:50PM

My belief is that

1) there is a commercial tenancy between the owner (A) and their tenant (B).
2) there are ASTs between B and his tenants (the sub-tenants) (C) (D) etc
3) B cannot evict C D etc without a court order
4) if there is no court order (and C, D etc do not 'surrender' their tenancies), then B cannot return the property to A at the expiry of his lease with vacant possession.
5) A could I believe sue B for breach of contract, but
6) A could not evict C, D etc and
7) C, D etc would continue to owe rent (under their ASTs) to B

The whole business of these 'guaranteed rent schemes' is a potential nightmare for this reason - I would never touch them with a bargepole.

Lost_Property · 14 October 2018 at 1:13PM

That's what I thought too. But if B is unable to make the payments to A and forfeits the lease (losing any deposit paid to A), from the date of forfeit the rent then becomes due to A, the superior landlord. Any possession hearing involving B and C, D after the date of forfeit would surely fail, yes?

However, any counterclaim could still be raised against B (and A too?).

Could A replace B after the forfeit in a hearing already scheduled by B but not happening until after the forfeit?

Could A 'purchase' the arrears off B and continue to claim it?

Would C or D's counterclaim(s) only be valid against B, say for harassment, disrepair, unprotected deposit, etc? Or would A inherit all of B's liabilities?
Who is liable for the unprotected deposit penalty?

In the Protectiom from Eviction Act '77 it does mention that "Landlord" means the immediate landlord and any superior LL through which he derives title.

theartfullodger · 14 October 2018 at 4:24PM

Lost property:

Are you tenant, named landlord on tenancy with occupant or owner or letting agent or solicitor? Or just a student doing research? Or someone trying to advise someone else?

There are two landlords in your example:

- Owner (landlord #1) rents to intermediate landlord (tenant #A).
- Intermediate landlord (landlord #2) rents to occupant(s) - (tenant(s) #B).

What problem are you trying to solve, please?

Prevention of Eviction landlord refers to whoever is landlord in any qualifying tenancy (eg almost certainly Owner/Intermediate tenancy not covered by act.

Read s18 of HA 1988. Says if intermediate's tenancy ends (ah, but has it.., and if so how...) then owner takes over as landlord of occupant(s) on same terms... See....
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/50/section/18

re

Lost_Property wrote: »

.............. the lease is some kind of "guaranteed" rent scheme.

think you mean "guaranted" rent scam....

NB Owner has almost certainly breached terms of any mortgage and/or landlord insurance.

Lost_Property · 16 October 2018 at 9:22AM

I'm one of the last remaining tenants. I'm refusing to leave without a possession hearing. The intermediate LL hasn't paid bills in months, is now threatening illegal eviction, probably hasn't paid the owner. 'Threatened" months ago to kick everybody out and hand the house back, but annoyingly hasn't done the second bit. He's invented a fictitious co-LL in whose name all the unpaid bills are in and put this name as a co-owner on a (possibly fabricated) version of the annual lease renewal - the original one just had the owner. The LL always refers to discussions with "The Landlord" as if he's only the agent acting on instructions (and the ASTa only refer to him as "The Landlord's Agent" without naming the actual superior LL/owner.
The owner is some kind of family/business contact of the LL's father so I find it hard to believe there isn't some kind of collusion regarding the harassment.
The intermediate tried issuing S8s and S21s but they appear faulty and haven't been followed through with court dates. Then he's offered "no need to go to court or pay arrears if you leave by end Nivember" but now he's retracted that and posted a bogus eviction notice for end of October claiming that he doesn't need a court order because we are lodgers due to sharing some facilities (with each other, not with a resident LL). This was in the name of the Tyler Durdenesque character that appears on all the bills but has otherwise never been seen or heard of, yet now has CCJs in his name, as does the intermediate LL himself.

Needless to say the house does not have the mandatory HMO licence, hence my thoughts on collusion by the "respectable" owner.

However dodgy the latter may be, it would be preferable if the internediate LL somehow dropped out of the equation so rent can start owing to the actual owner. The LL seems desparate to hand the hoyse back empty so the owner can do it up a bit and presumably re-let, but it-s a recentl built house so not hard to spruce up with tenants in situ. Estate covenants wouldn't permit carving up the house into smaller rooms either, even if the plan was for a "lockdown" conversion to exploit benefit rules.

Stuck in stalemate at the moment. If I instigated my own harassment proceedings could he counterclaim for possession due to arrears or only claim the money itself?

silvercar · 16 October 2018 at 9:30AM

Lost_Property wrote: »

I'm one of the last remaining tenants. I'm refusing to leave without a possession hearing. The intermediate LL hasn't paid bills in months, is now threatening illegal eviction, probably hasn't paid the owner. 'Threatened" months ago to kick everybody out and hand the house back, but annoyingly hasn't done the second bit. He's invented a fictitious co-LL in whose name all the unpaid bills are in and put this name as a co-owner on a (possibly fabricated) version of the annual lease renewal - the original one just had the owner. The LL always refers to discussions with "The Landlord" as if he's only the agent acting on instructions (and the ASTa only refer to him as "The Landlord's Agent" without naming the actual superior LL/owner.
The owner is some kind of family/business contact of the LL's father so I find it hard to believe there isn't some kind of collusion regarding the harassment.
The intermediate tried issuing S8s and S21s but they appear faulty and haven't been followed through with court dates. Then he's offered "no need to go to court or pay arrears if you leave by end Nivember" but now he's retracted that and posted a bogus eviction notice for end of October claiming that he doesn't need a court order because we are lodgers due to sharing some facilities (with each other, not with a resident LL). This was in the name of the Tyler Durdenesque character that appears on all the bills but has otherwise never been seen or heard of, yet now has CCJs in his name, as does the intermediate LL himself.

Needless to say the house does not have the mandatory HMO licence, hence my thoughts on collusion by the "respectable" owner.

However dodgy the latter may be, it would be preferable if the internediate LL somehow dropped out of the equation so rent can start owing to the actual owner. The LL seems desparate to hand the hoyse back empty so the owner can do it up a bit and presumably re-let, but it-s a recentl built house so not hard to spruce up with tenants in situ. Estate covenants wouldn't permit carving up the house into smaller rooms either, even if the plan was for a "lockdown" conversion to exploit benefit rules.

Stuck in stalemate at the moment. If I instigated my own harassment proceedings could he counterclaim for possession due to arrears or only claim the money itself?

Your last sentence is most telling. Why are you in arrears? Whatever dodgy dealing your landlord has, if you have rent arrears you could be evicted in a matter of months. Are you looking for your next home? All very well digging your heels in, sooner or later you will be evicted or leave.

Comms69 · 16 October 2018 at 9:31AM

Lost_Property wrote: »

I'm one of the last remaining tenants. I'm refusing to leave without a possession hearing. The intermediate LL hasn't paid bills in months, is now threatening illegal eviction, probably hasn't paid the owner. 'Threatened" months ago to kick everybody out and hand the house back, but annoyingly hasn't done the second bit. He's invented a fictitious co-LL in whose name all the unpaid bills are in and put this name as a co-owner on a (possibly fabricated) version of the annual lease renewal - the original one just had the owner. The LL always refers to discussions with "The Landlord" as if he's only the agent acting on instructions (and the ASTa only refer to him as "The Landlord's Agent" without naming the actual superior LL/owner. - All of this is totally irrelevant.
The owner is some kind of family/business contact of the LL's father so I find it hard to believe there isn't some kind of collusion regarding the harassment.
The intermediate tried issuing S8s and S21s but they appear faulty and haven't been followed through with court dates. Then he's offered "no need to go to court or pay arrears if you leave by end Nivember" but now he's retracted that and posted a bogus eviction notice for end of October claiming that he doesn't need a court order because we are lodgers due to sharing some facilities (with each other, not with a resident LL). This was in the name of the Tyler Durdenesque character that appears on all the bills but has otherwise never been seen or heard of, yet now has CCJs in his name, as does the intermediate LL himself. - again mostly irrelevant.

Needless to say the house does not have the mandatory HMO licence, hence my thoughts on collusion by the "respectable" owner. - complain to council

However dodgy the latter may be, it would be preferable if the internediate LL somehow dropped out of the equation so rent can start owing to the actual owner. The LL seems desparate to hand the hoyse back empty so the owner can do it up a bit and presumably re-let, but it-s a recentl built house so not hard to spruce up with tenants in situ. Estate covenants wouldn't permit carving up the house into smaller rooms either, even if the plan was for a "lockdown" conversion to exploit benefit rules. - you owe rent to the intermediate landlord. The rest is totally irrelevant

Stuck in stalemate at the moment. If I instigated my own harassment proceedings could he counterclaim for possession due to arrears or only claim the money itself?

As he's issued a s.8 already he can go down that route straight anyway.

Lost_Property · 18 October 2018 at 2:35AM

You're both missing the point of my last question. Yes he CAN take me to court. For some reason he won't though. So if I instigate it myself does the S8 possession aspect drop out of the equation? I'm expecting the money claims and counter-claims to roughly net off.

Comms69 · 18 October 2018 at 8:51AM

Lost_Property wrote: »

You're both missing the point of my last question. Yes he CAN take me to court. For some reason he won't though. So if I instigate it myself does the S8 possession aspect drop out of the equation? I'm expecting the money claims and counter-claims to roughly net off.

No, why would it drop out?

You can sue for harassment, and possibly get a small amount of money.

He can still evict you.

Not sure why you're finding this difficult.

Lost_Property · 22 October 2018 at 12:38AM

Well his lease expires soon and he hasn't applied for a court date, plus I think the S8 was defective so by the time another is issued and a court date set he won't necessarily still be the LL- that was the point of my original question. If it DID go to a possession hearing the arrears-minus-counter-claim would roughly balance, so possession would no longer be mandatory. But if I make my own claim for harassment, breach of contract, breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, etc he can counter-claim the arrears but will the S8 feature (if not defective anyway) or does it need it's own specific hearing? Sorry - I hope I've explained my question better. Regard the arrears as strategic and temporary.

The point of the exercise is that if I didn't have the arrears I'd just be trying to claim from somebody with a history of not paying bills and a collection of CCJs, so I'd just end up losing money instead of being up by the amount of rent saved (minus costs). There wouldn't be any arrears if he wasn't dodgy.

PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

Intermediate landlord times out before hearing

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free