My rented property was surrendered to the bank..... where is my depost?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    My rented property was surrendered to the bank..... where is my depost?

    Helllo everyone

    my house was surrendered back to the bank last year and i was paying rent to a letting agency who where managing the property for the bank until it was sold. it has since been sold to new landlords, they gave us our notice to move out which is fine they want to live here. they bought the house from the bank. when i questioned where our deposit was, as we are getting housed by the council soon, i was told by new landlords they didn't receive any deposit off the bank.
    my old landlord says he never received anything in error, the letting agency who managed the property for the bank say its the new landlords responsibility? everyone is pointing fingers and i am down €1000? who is responsible for the money????????? some one help!!

    #2
    Was the deposit protected?
    I am not a lawyer, nor am I licensed to provide any regulated advice. None of my posts should be treated as legal or financial advice.

    I do not answer questions through private messages which should be posted publicly on the forum.

    Comment


      #3
      Did you get the necessary paperwork telling you who protected it and where it was ? My first thoughts would be the original landlord is your most likely target as the agent is simply working for him/her and its they who are responsible.

      Comment


        #4
        "The Landlord" is always responsible, even if there is an agent & even if they were never given the £££ by the agent.

        And when there is a change of owner/landlord (eg when it was surrendered) the new owner takes over that responsibility: Under s.3 of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 the new landlord takes on the benefits and liabilities of the old landlord.See
        https://england.shelter.org.uk/legal...ge_of_landlord

        Arguably you could sue each and every owner and for return and/or penalty for non-protection. And perhaps agent also.

        'Phone the experts, Shelter, 0808 800 4444
        I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

        Comment


          #5
          Artful - it is great to see you! - hope you are OK?

          .. and the bank too. They received it and sold it.

          But the first step, as above is to check if it was protected, who protected it, and if anyone unprotected it. It may be in a custodial scheme.

          Comment


            #6
            Unlike the case where someone who bought a tenanted property from an existing landlord, I'm not convinced that a mortgagee in possession ever "received" the tenancy deposit that the mortgagor took as landlord.
            I am not a lawyer, nor am I licensed to provide any regulated advice. None of my posts should be treated as legal or financial advice.

            I do not answer questions through private messages which should be posted publicly on the forum.

            Comment


              #7
              And that is assuming there even was a mortgagee in possession and that the lender didn't simply appoint the letting agent as a receiver under the Law of Property Act and then enforced a sale. In that case, the lender was never legally landlord.
              I am not a lawyer, nor am I licensed to provide any regulated advice. None of my posts should be treated as legal or financial advice.

              I do not answer questions through private messages which should be posted publicly on the forum.

              Comment


                #8
                Was it protected ? Do you have proof of the deposit ? Certificate ? what is on the tenancy agreement ? i know of a tenant who was in a property which got reposessed and then sold and it took them ages to get the deposit back as agent didnt seem to know who had it - previous landlords back pocket ?
                I do hope you get this back , like artful dadger says see Shelter for advice rahter than go to a no win no fee claim

                Comment


                  #9
                  Who did you pay the deposit to?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    If the new landlord was in a position to serve notice for a tenancy, they have become the tenant's landlord.
                    So they are responsible for the return of the tenancy deposit.

                    If they haven't inherited the tenancy, they aren't in a position to serve notice unless they and the tenant have signed a new tenancy agreement.
                    Getting the deposit from the previous landlord (or landlords) is the buyer's problem.

                    Given the value of the deposit, I would confirm to the landlord that if they don't "return" the deposit when the tenancy ends, you'll have no choice but to sue them for it, because, if they didn't receive it when they bought the property, they did receive the liability for it.
                    When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                    Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                      If they haven't inherited the tenancy, they aren't in a position to serve notice unless they and the tenant have signed a new tenancy agreement.
                      Please explain precisely what you mean by that.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by theartfullodger View Post
                        "The Landlord" is always responsible, even if there is an agent & even if they were never given the £££ by the agent.

                        And when there is a change of owner/landlord (eg when it was surrendered) the new owner takes over that responsibility: Under s.3 of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 the new landlord takes on the benefits and liabilities of the old landlord.
                        If we are talking about recovery of the deposit where the statutory provisions have been complied with, whether section 3 applies depends on whether an obligation was imposed on the landlord to return the deposit. If the deposit was actually paid to the landlord there has to be implied obligation to repay it if there is no claim on it. However, if the terms were that the deposit was to be held by a third party without any obligation to repay it imposed on the landlord, it is difficult to see how a term to repay it can implied unless the third party has paid the deposit to the landlord.

                        Originally posted by theartfullodger View Post
                        Arguably you could sue each and every owner and for return and/or penalty for non-protection. And perhaps agent also.
                        As to the deposit, in any proceedings under section 214 HA 2004 the court can only order it to be repaid by the person who appears to the court to be holding it. Whomever you sue, it has to be implicit that the penalty can only awarded once. Anything else would be unjust enrichment.

                        My interpretation of section 214 HA 2004 is that the court cannot order a former landlord to pay the penalty, but I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
                          Please explain precisely what you mean by that.
                          Assuming it's an AST in England / Wales.

                          Only the landlord (or one of the joint landlords) or someone acting on behalf of the landlord can serve notice on a tenant.
                          So the person serving notice to the tenant is ultimately their landlord (and they accept that they are).

                          So they've either entered into a new tenancy agreement with the tenant since they bought the property, or they became the landlord under an existing tenancy when their purchase was completed.
                          If the latter, they have stepped into the shoes of the previous landlord.

                          If there's no new tenancy agreement (which, I assume there hasn't been, because then notice would be more complicated) there must have been a "chain" of landlords running in parallel with whatever the chain of ownership was.

                          The liability for the deposit passes from the original landlord to the current landlord.
                          When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                          Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
                            Artful - it is great to see you! - hope you are OK?

                            ....
                            Fine: Decided to take a break, numerically related..

                            Best wishes to all

                            I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                              If there's no new tenancy agreement (which, I assume there hasn't been, because then notice would be more complicated) there must have been a "chain" of landlords running in parallel with whatever the chain of ownership was.
                              I was with you up to here. I do not understand why the notice would be more complicated.

                              Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                              The liability for the deposit passes from the original landlord to the current landlord.
                              Only if the original landlord had an obligation to repay the deposit does the new landlord assume the obligation under the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995. The new landlord may though assume the obligation if he is paid the deposit or if he expressly assumes the obligation.The original landlord's obligations continue until he is released, though it is possible for the tenancy agreement to provide that the obligation to repay the deposit is discharged if the landlord pays the deposit to a successor purchaser.

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X