I'm in trouble because the new landlord claims the old agent is responsible for the deposit, while the old agent says they aren't.
A company bought a property with tenants in situ. Funds were paid on 20th Apr. On 25th Apr. a solicitor representing the new LL sends a letter stating that the company is the new LL, and included is a letter from the old LL concurring.
On 5th May the new managing agent sends a letter again concurring, mentioning section 47. Tenant pays rent to this managing agent since.
On July 1st, tenant leaves on good terms. Only problem is, the new LL tells tenant that the old agent is responsible for the deposit. Old agent says they aren't. The plot thickens because the land registry says the new LL became the owner on July 15th...
I'm basically between a rock and a hard place. WHO is responsible for the deposit in this case?
A company bought a property with tenants in situ. Funds were paid on 20th Apr. On 25th Apr. a solicitor representing the new LL sends a letter stating that the company is the new LL, and included is a letter from the old LL concurring.
On 5th May the new managing agent sends a letter again concurring, mentioning section 47. Tenant pays rent to this managing agent since.
On July 1st, tenant leaves on good terms. Only problem is, the new LL tells tenant that the old agent is responsible for the deposit. Old agent says they aren't. The plot thickens because the land registry says the new LL became the owner on July 15th...
I'm basically between a rock and a hard place. WHO is responsible for the deposit in this case?
Comment