Deposit protection obligation: LPA Receiver or original landlord?

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

    #31
    Originally posted by silvercar View Post
    If the landlord is insolvent, would that make the tenant a creditor?
    Yes, but only an unsecured creditor.
    JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
    1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
    2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
    3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
    4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by westminster View Post
      Very good point; even if LL wanted to protect the deposit, he's prevented from doing so. What a brilliant system! (not)
      Agreed about the "not". However, he could potentially use the DPS - if tenant is still in occupation, provided the DPS don't prevent him from doing so because he'd been barred by Mydeposits or was insolvent. I suppose if he couldn't reprotect elsewhere, he'd have to return it.- but if he is insolvent, he cant.

      Hmmnn what a brilliant system indeed.... (not)
      Last edited by havensRus; 10-11-2009, 18:30 PM. Reason: add info

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by SE1 Tenant View Post
        The LL / agency situation is very different from the LL / LPA Receiver in my view, on the ground that ultimate benefactor of the cash flow generated by the flat/proterty (i.e. the rent) is now the LPA Receiver. This is not the case in a LL / agency situation.

        !!
        That is not the case the reciever has to apportion the income in a specific way set out in law, essentially first he has to pay the interest on the loan to the lender, then some other obligations followed by his own costs/fees(which are also set out in law) and if there is still a surplus the remainder back to the mortgagor/LL

        My take on the deposit would be that as the LL cannot protect the deposit he cannot take/hold one so must return it to the tenant, after all the deposit ultimately belongs to the tenant

        Comment


          #34
          So, of the LPA Receiver has appointed an Managing Agent (which belongs to the same company as the LPA Receiver) is my counterparty when/if I file a county court claim for depsoit not being protected:

          1) LPA Receiver;

          2) Managing agent appointed by LPA Receiver;

          3) Original Landlord (who holds deposit);

          or

          4) Any/all of the above?

          I have read and read and read but I can still not quite figure this out.

          Any info or advice that could shed light of this would be valuable and appreciated. Or if there is a solicitor/legal professional on here that would like talk in/advice private about that I am open for that also as I'm in a catch-22 situation if I can't figure this out as I have a very clear cut case but I don't know who to file the County Court claim against. I've tried a few solicitors but they have not been able to give me a straight answer either.

          Comment


            #35
            Another, eh, interesting twist to this is that as my deposit is not protected the LL or LPA-R can not notice me to leave as long as I pay my rent, right?

            In that case the LPA-R can't sell the flat which ultimtely he/she is mandated to do to recover the mortgage for the mortgage lender/bank.

            So, shouldn't really the LPA-R be responsible for the deposit, after all, as without being in control of, and if it gets unprotected, he/she can not fullfill his/her obligations.

            Comment


              #36
              Another thing, again, if now the LPA-R is really acting as an 'agent' to the LL they could still be held liable for the deposit (protecting and returning it) and accordingly I could direct my claim for protecting/returning the depsit and the 3 times deposit on the basis that they are just an 'agent' of the LL.

              All according to 212 (9) (a):

              (9) In this Chapter—

              (a) references to a landlord or landlords in relation to any shorthold tenancy or tenancies include references to a person or persons acting on his or their behalf in relation to the tenancy or tenancies, and

              http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2004...pt6-ch4-l1g212

              Comment


                #37
                More discussion and some additional interesting and relevant conclusions and information on this topic on this blog:

                http://landlordlaw.blogspot.com/2009...blem-what.html

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by SE1 Tenant View Post
                  Another, eh, interesting twist to this is that as my deposit is not protected the LL or LPA-R can not notice me to leave as long as I pay my rent, right?

                  In that case the LPA-R can't sell the flat which ultimtely he/she is mandated to do to recover the mortgage for the mortgage lender/bank.
                  They couldn't use a s.21 notice seeking possession, but they could use Ground 2.

                  See http://www.bilberrybloom.com/citizen...1/11050612.htm

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by SE1 Tenant View Post
                    Another thing, again, if now the LPA-R is really acting as an 'agent' to the LL they could still be held liable for the deposit (protecting and returning it) and accordingly I could direct my claim for protecting/returning the depsit and the 3 times deposit on the basis that they are just an 'agent' of the LL.

                    All according to 212 (9) (a):

                    (9) In this Chapter—

                    (a) references to a landlord or landlords in relation to any shorthold tenancy or tenancies include references to a person or persons acting on his or their behalf in relation to the tenancy or tenancies, and

                    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2004...pt6-ch4-l1g212
                    Yes, you can also claim against the LL's agent.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      in similar situation

                      What happened at the end in your case? I am in a similar escenario and i am doing a bit of research on the matter.

                      Did you pursue the receivers for the 3x deposit claim? what has happened since?

                      Any light you could shed on this will be greatly appreciated.

                      Comment

                      Latest Activity

                      Collapse

                      • Should a landlord provide means of connecting a cooker?
                        Mexico14
                        Moved in to a house without a cooker nor the basic connections to my install my own? There is a gas pipe near the space for a cooker however it's been capped off. Also there's no switch with a neon light for an electric cooker. Should either of these have been provided by the landlord?...
                        21-05-2019, 17:46 PM
                      • Reply to Should a landlord provide means of connecting a cooker?
                        buzzard1994
                        What was there when you viewed it and what does your inventory say?

                        There us wiring and there is a gas pipe, which would have to be capped off if nothing connected to it. For atrained person neither is a difficult job and the cost is likely to be pretty similar unless the gas fitter reckons...
                        23-05-2019, 17:25 PM
                      • tenants excess use of water/failure to report
                        Davidqc1
                        Hi All,

                        My position is as follows. T in flat. Managed by A. Fully managed. Same T for last few years. No issues re rent or condition of flat. Regular water bills which I pay on a quarterly basis. T pays £25 in addition to monthly rent. I receive a water bill for sum of £1150 over the...
                        22-05-2019, 19:53 PM
                      • Reply to tenants excess use of water/failure to report
                        buzzard1994
                        I understand your pain - but unless your agreement with the tenant includes something about paying for excess water use then I suspect your only hope is to negotiate with the water company.

                        If the toilet was not filling you'd expect the tenant to notice but if filling, just overflowing...
                        23-05-2019, 17:06 PM
                      • Invalid section 21?
                        sark
                        Hi,

                        After 5 years quietly renting our flat, the landlord has decided to sell and gave us formal 'notice to quit'. He tells us his mortgage ends next year so he needs to sell.

                        He sent the notice via email on 9th April, giving us until 8th June to leave (the date on the attached...
                        23-05-2019, 13:20 PM
                      • Reply to Invalid section 21?
                        DPT57
                        You do seem to have taken this quite personally, but its possible that the landlord cant get a replacement btl motgage, which is a lot tougher these days or even that he just cant manage the massively increased bureaucracy.

                        As others have suggested, I would keep quiet about the invalid...
                        23-05-2019, 14:46 PM
                      • Reply to Invalid section 21?
                        jpkeates
                        It's very easy to get notice wrong - but that only matters if everyone falls out.
                        From the sound of it, you've accepted you're going to need to move and, so, hopefully, it's just about the time scale.
                        23-05-2019, 14:23 PM
                      • Reply to Invalid section 21?
                        JK0
                        Oh, well there's no reason he couldn't do that for the sake of comparison, but still sell to you. Maybe you could ask what his estate agent suggests, and make him a lower offer?...
                        23-05-2019, 14:22 PM
                      • Reply to Invalid section 21?
                        sark
                        It sounds like he's got this very wrong, which is helpful. I don't fancy my chances of getting 5k from him however...
                        23-05-2019, 14:19 PM
                      • Reply to tenants excess use of water/failure to report
                        Interlaken
                        How long has the tenant been absent? Is there a clause in the AST that says he must not leave the premises empty for more than 21 days or similar. This might give you some way of proving negligence.
                        23-05-2019, 14:08 PM
                      Working...
                      X