Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

HelpMe!

New Members
  • Content Count

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About HelpMe!

  • Rank
    HPC Poster

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    East Mids / EastAnglia
  1. ref the issue of whether the tenant can sue the agent, I'll try to find the case, it's bookmarked somewhere. The situation was as I described, pre the new deposit laws and the agent, who was holding the tenants deposit on behalf of the landlord was refusing to return the deposit even after the landlord had approved this. All requests by the tenant failed so the landlord had to sue. I'll try to dig the case out and if I'm wrong I'll also post and update. Rgds
  2. Do not be bullied or intimidated by your 'friendly' ea - there are many reasons why they could be doing this, not one of them is to your benefit. You have, as has been said, the right to quiet enjoyment. Period The condition you treat the property you are paying to rent has no bearing whatsoever upon how you will leave it at the end of the tenancy and therefore is irrelevant. That's what the depost is for, to cover your indiscretions if any occur. Be VERY careful about them looking round and taking pictures for the record, they could be trying to sell it from under you. Don't let anyone in w/o you being there and DO NOT let any viewings occur until YOU finish your tenancy unless YOU are paid for each viewing. Examples I know of are £30.00 cash or in M&S vouchers per viewing. Consider the alternative, what could you tell the person viewing to put them off. In this falling market it's a cheap bribe from the Landlord and make sure it's in cash, not knocked off the end of the rent. Don't laugh about this, I am serious. Any REAL landlord knows what they can and can't do and winging it to put a viewer in YOUR property (as YOU are paying for the quiet enjoyment) and if they think they can get away with it .... the word is HARRASSMENT, plain and simple. Don't be fobbed off by the ea - they are working for the landlord, not you.
  3. They don't care, 'Not my place to dig too much guv', would be the probable answer. Furthermore, an 'honest' agent would admit that if they asked too many questions of the dodgy landlords they'd simply take their property to another agent who'd be more accommodating and then the other guy would take the commission. All the agents want is to take an upfront fee and skim a monthly percentage off the rent. Oh and charge as many extras that they can to both the tenant and the landlord. Regarding suing the letting agent, I think you'll find that as they are the Landlords agent and not yours you can't sue them in this context. It's like the problem where a landord has the deposit held in trust by the agent who, when the tenant leaves the property, the agent refuses to return the deposit even when the Landlord approves the return. In the end the Landlord has to sue the agent for the return of the deposit to the tenant - there is case law with this example somewhere, IIRC.
  4. Historically, all letting agents did, if they did anything whatsoever was to ask the landlord 'do you have a BTL mortgage' and anyone with a Lie-To-Let mortgage would say 'yes' and no one would know. However, if they fell into arrears their tenant would be stuffed. Their AST would simply invalidated by the mortage company by virtue of them not agreeing in advance to the mortgagee obtaining their permission to let out the property. No approval means no court will EVER uphold an AST, unless the mortgage company begins to collect rent from the alleged tenants. That then resets the AST and the full benefits of the AST acts are then conferred on the now-legal tenants. So if the landlord falls into arrears and the coy seeks possession they will simply ignore the tenant, even if they have 1 day previous signed and paid the deposit on an 6 or 12 month AST. Often the landlord is trying to get a tenant up to and past the possession date. If they can 'sneak someone in' they will grab the deposit and 1-2 months rent. Then, about 14 days later the tenant recieves a 'to the occupier' letter telling them they have 14 days to leave before the locks are being changed. No more property, no more landlord and the tenant is down £1-3k. Nasty! All tenants need to watch for this in the present climate. Any tenant needs to get written proof from the landlord NOT the letting agent that the landlord is a REAL landlord (Ie the mort coy knows they are letting) and not a Lie to Let risk) £3.00 on the land reg will show the charges and each would need to be clarified. After all, why should you be able to credit check a tenant without the tenant also being able to credit check you to confirm you won't be getting them evicted in a few weeks or months time? You said that it's not the letting agents right to know what your financial arrangements are on the property, true, however, I'd be failing in my duty for my family not to check before I parted with any money to rent from you unless I got that information in black and white, don't trust you myself you see. New market, new rules.
  5. There are a LOT of websites 'out there' that talk up the BMV model, but nearly all the practitioners are newbies, that is, they've only ever purchased when money was cheap. The older term landlords probably already know enough to not need to get more info from websites and they have no doubt been on the sidelines, quietly waiting to pick up BMV purchases from the failed BMV investors that the list above contained.
  6. No, you don't have to stay cashless for the next 12 years. What happens is the arrears will be recorded somewhere, should be on your credit report and will affect future credit ratings. Then, as time goes on you'll regularly be chased by either the coy you owed the shortfall to or, as another poster said, they'll sell the debt on for p on the £ and they will try to get it out of you. Either way, you can get on with your life again - which they want so they can threaten to attach the debt to your next home - nice, eh? Still, thats fiat currency for you.
  7. And if the person who sold them the property declares themselves bankrupt (as many are doing), their wonderful BMV purchase gets unwound by the official receiver since they have benefited to the detriment of other creditors. But they don't tell them this when they teach all this property developer stuff on the £1k courses.
  8. A: they are liable for up to years. It used to be 6 years but following the last crash of the '80's the UK laws were amended (to help the banks, of course) so that an action could be brought for unsecured debt if it was as a result of a secured debt shortfall for up to 12 years from the sale. For other unsecured debt the statute of limitations is 6 years. In effect, after that date someone would still owe the debt but the coy could not take them to court to make them pay. And as a previous poster indicated, most of these shortfalls can be settled for well under the alleged shortfall, if handled correctly.
  9. I've just been listening to the most recent (6th Feb) edition of his weekly show and at the end, 52 mins into a 58 min prog) he explains how his American Express corporate credit card balance was reduced from 35k to 5k, WITHOUT WARNING. Apparently, he first became aware of this when he went to book an event at a hotel on the card and it was declined! (Note: no corres issued unlike the recent egg issue) When he pulled his credit report it was clean (obviously). However, it later transpired that because he was in the financial services arena, which is now deemed to be a bad risk, Amex were unilaterally reducing their exposure, just in case the limits were run up to the max. 'Guilt by association' was how he described it. Apparently he always pays his balance in full every month (surprise, surprise). On this basis, it no doubt means that there's going to be a lot of businesses that are riding credit cards as a pseudo overdraft that'll be finding it very difficult to gain access to working capital in the very near future. The lifeline will be removed without warning! That's like stealing a crack pipe from a junkie, or trying to take ciggies from a smoker. Clearly knee-jerk reactions are the order of the day out there in financial make-believe land. Here's the link to the progs, it's the one at the top of the list http://www.europac.net/radioshow_archives.asp
  10. Yes, desperate ( sorry about the spelling error in the title ) and they've put it IN CAPITALS. As if that's really going to make someone pay the full asking price.
  11. Over here Peterborough there are a LOT of new build homes that are not selling. It now appears that those same builders are stuck with unsaleable p/x properties too. This has just gone onto Rightmove in the last 24 hours. It's a detached 4bed in a quite nice part of Peterborough, but they are asking £359,995! http://www.rightmove.co.uk/viewdetails-192...=2&tr_t=buy Quotes at the top of the ad text: This property is being sold by a developer, it was acquired under their part exchange scheme and now needs to be sold quickly No Chain Viewing Recommended URGENT SALE REQUIRED Unlike new builds they can't offer snazzy upgrade packages for these already been lived in homes. Reality pricing would take this down to the mid £250k amount since why pay any more stamp duty, especially since there are hundreds of large homes out here for sale. I personally know of some that are repos that have been empty for going on 12 months now. It could be that these p/x homes could be where the best bargains could reside as the market falls further.
  12. The reality of your situation is that if the LL can't cover the arrears, they will be repossessed so within 3-4 months of now you will be out, unless the mortgage was a 'real' BTL and then the mort coy will need to let it run until expiry and give the correct notice to quit. Forget your deposit; unless it is in the new fangled protection scheme you won't see a penny back and it won't be worth suing the landlord, you'll generate more cash simply by withholding rent on an illegal AST Take a trip to this post by DrGuid and the comments that follow. http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...showtopic=64195 Read, digest and then post further if you want more help. The main point to note is that the whole process is quite long and there is a BIG difference between repossession and then eviction. HTH BTW on another forum I read about a really awkward landlord that called up the police to have them arrest a tenant for opening post. When she explained the situation they didn't take it further but it was his way of trying to 'frighten' her into paying the arrears - even though he too was being repossessed. Just to confirm; I have and would always open post coming through the letterbox, especially if it was addressed to the landlord, for just the reason you have now found yourself in.
  13. What's wrong with relating a rumour and then posing a question on the back of it?
  14. That's very interesting and may explain an unusual scenario I've noticed: Across the road to where we live we can see a strip of nearly new homes. One was for sale as the 'ex show home'. One would assume that the foregoing statement would mean the house would NOT appear on nethouseprices as ever being sold until the first purchaser actually purchased it in '07. Well the first 'purchaser' did so, in Aug '07, after it had sat empty for about 4 months, however, according to nethouseprices, they are the second purchase, the house selling firstly in late '05. So I guess wherever you are if you check a newly built developement's show-homes you could find the various new homes have been sold in this way so as to free up capital, akin to a company going down a sale and lease back route for tooling etc. Another benefit of this method is that it would help to show support for whatever price they have decided to market the homes for, wity a 'see what the last one sold for' argument.
  15. Yes southsea13, totally ommitted to say that. DrGUID, if the 'landlord' turns up or 'sends someone round' to 'have a word about the outstanding payments' that is harrassment and a call to your local police is in order. I know from past experience and there is a lot of case law to corroborate this. This is why I recommend the lock changing. keep us posted and be sure you react to the exact wording of any post, not the assumptions that the solicitors may prefer you take.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.