Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Normal

Landlord Selling To Another "investor"

Recommended Posts

It seems that my landlord is (trying to) sell to someone else, who I understand would continue letting the property to me.

Anyone know where I stand with regard to my current and future contracts? No LA involved (currently), I rent direct form him, AST.

Am I right in thinking that as my contract is still with the original LL he should at some point give me a written notice that our contract is to terminate (with 2 months notice). It would then be up to me to negotiate new terms with the new LL, regardless of who the actual owner would be at that point? Or can the new LL only give me a contract once he owns, and I've had 2 months notice?

If this has been answered elsewhere, please just give me the link...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that my landlord is (trying to) sell to someone else, who I understand would continue letting the property to me.

Anyone know where I stand with regard to my current and future contracts? No LA involved (currently), I rent direct form him, AST.

Am I right in thinking that as my contract is still with the original LL he should at some point give me a written notice that our contract is to terminate (with 2 months notice). It would then be up to me to negotiate new terms with the new LL, regardless of who the actual owner would be at that point? Or can the new LL only give me a contract once he owns, and I've had 2 months notice?

If this has been answered elsewhere, please just give me the link...

No that not how it works.

The contract belongs to the property and is transferred with it. The new LL has do nothing (except inform you) for the tenancy to continue on the same terms.

Of course he can give notice and renegotiate if he wishes (provided that you are in a periodic contract)

tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No that not how it works.

The contract belongs to the property and is transferred with it. The new LL has do nothing (except inform you) for the tenancy to continue on the same terms.

The contract clearly states that it is between the landlord and me though. If there was a problem after he'd sold the property, but before then end of the contract, I would assume him to be liable unless a new contract was prepared?

Of course he can give notice and renegotiate if he wishes (provided that you are in a periodic contract)

For some reason the LL has provided a new contract every 6 months. I would guess therefore that at some point he should have put my deposit with one of these holding companies, although I gave it to him before the new rules came in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The contract clearly states that it is between the landlord and me though. If there was a problem after he'd sold the property, but before then end of the contract, I would assume him to be liable unless a new contract was prepared?

That's fine. The contract can be sold. In fact, the house can't be sold without also selling the contract while the contract is valid (if they want you out or different terms, they can ask you, but they can't do anything without your agreement).

For some reason the LL has provided a new contract every 6 months. I would guess therefore that at some point he should have put my deposit with one of these holding companies, although I gave it to him before the new rules came in.

I'll pass on that one. I think the new landlord becomes liable for the deposit (and his lawyer should point that out to him). But in your position, I'd want to clarify that now, so you don't end up mired in confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should certainly make sure the deposit position is clarified now when all parties are communicating and involved as it'll be much harder to do so when you come to move out in however many months/years.

You may be able to gain advantage from the situation. When my flat was sold from one 'investor' to another I managed to get my deposit back from the deposit company and avoid paying a new one to my new (and rather green) landlord. I am therefore living here deposit free, which while I don't intend to abuse the privilege can only be a good thing.

Best of luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except possibly when it comes to any deposit (as to which see the next paragraph) a tenant is not prejudiced by a change of landlord. The new landlord steps into the shoes of the former landlord. The former landlord continues to be liable unless released. See the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995.

However, when it comes to any deposit it may come down to what the tenancy agreement says. If the tenancy agreement says nothing, then it is difficult to see how any obligation can be imposed on the new landlord unless he actually has the deposit passed to him by the former landlord. If no obligation is imposed on the new landlord it still stays with the former landlord, though that may be of little comfort to a tenant if he cannot track him down.

There ought to be no problem is the deposit is protected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except possibly when it comes to any deposit (as to which see the next paragraph) a tenant is not prejudiced by a change of landlord. The new landlord steps into the shoes of the former landlord. The former landlord continues to be liable unless released. See the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995.

However, when it comes to any deposit it may come down to what the tenancy agreement says. If the tenancy agreement says nothing, then it is difficult to see how any obligation can be imposed on the new landlord unless he actually has the deposit passed to him by the former landlord. If no obligation is imposed on the new landlord it still stays with the former landlord, though that may be of little comfort to a tenant if he cannot track him down.

There ought to be no problem is the deposit is protected.

Thanks all.

The deposit isn't protected but I'm fairly confident that it will be returned by the current LL. I was more concerned about the transfer of the contract, but this seems to be fairly straight forward legally.

I know nothing about the new "investor" but I'm guessing that one buying in the current climate is going to be a bit green!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know nothing about the new "investor" but I'm guessing that one buying in the current climate is going to be a bit green!

Personally I would have said the reverse. I have no facts to back it up but my personal feeling is that there is very little "new" money entering the BTL market. This person is likely to be a very long term investor who knows exactly what they are doing.

However, for me that would be a good thing, there have been a number of idiots jumping on the BTL wagon in the last 10 years or so, they are the ones you should fear. They soon get tripped up and the ones with the brains come along and pick up the pieces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all.

The deposit isn't protected but I'm fairly confident that it will be returned by the current LL. I was more concerned about the transfer of the contract, but this seems to be fairly straight forward legally.

I know nothing about the new "investor" but I'm guessing that one buying in the current climate is going to be a bit green!

Issue summons immediately for the deposit to be submitted to the TDS and claim your 3 times penalty.

The contract is between you and the landlord for the rental of the property.

If the Landlord sells beneath you, then he is in breach...the new LL has no obligation on you to take on or renew any contract, the deposit or anything else...He should be aware the property has a sitting tenant and he MAY take on the contract, providing it is agreeable to you and the deposit is freshly protected by him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Issue summons immediately for the deposit to be submitted to the TDS and claim your 3 times penalty.

There is not evidence here that the contract isn't one that was entered into before there was a requirement to protect deposits.

Given that the LL is trying to sell with tenant in situ I think that it quite possibly the case.

The contract is between you and the landlord for the rental of the property.

If the Landlord sells beneath you, then he is in breach

Absolute rubbish. A landlord has every right to sell the property with a tenant in situ and will not be in breach of anything by doing so

tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not evidence here that the contract isn't one that was entered into before there was a requirement to protect deposits.

Given that the LL is trying to sell with tenant in situ I think that it quite possibly the case.

Absolute rubbish. A landlord has every right to sell the property with a tenant in situ and will not be in breach of anything by doing so

tim

Of course he can sell the property with a tenant in situ. the contract is however, between the landlord and the tenant...not with the house...cite: recent law changes where a BANK takes over and gets possession...tenants now have more rights....to notice of eviction.

I think the poster mentioned up stream the AST was renewed every 6 months...hence the TPS is a legal requirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course he can sell the property with a tenant in situ. the contract is however, between the landlord and the tenant...not with the house...cite: recent law changes where a BANK takes over and gets possession...tenants now have more rights....to notice of eviction.

Irrelevant. One landlord selling to another is a business transaction. The tenancy passes to the new landlord with the property, including all rights (to collect rent, to serve notice once any fixed term is expired) and obligations. The bank repossession is a completely different case: the tenancy is void because it was in breach of the landlord's terms under a pre-existing mortgage agreement. The tenant getting chucked out is a victim of an illegal landlord's fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irrelevant. One landlord selling to another is a business transaction. The tenancy passes to the new landlord with the property, including all rights (to collect rent, to serve notice once any fixed term is expired) and obligations. The bank repossession is a completely different case: the tenancy is void because it was in breach of the landlord's terms under a pre-existing mortgage agreement. The tenant getting chucked out is a victim of an illegal landlord's fraud.

Assuming the landlord IS selling the thing as a business proposition. You will see these advertised as sales with tenant in situ. The tenant will be informed of the change.

There have been posts here in the past about tenants finding they have a new landlord and the new landlord is a shocked as they are. this could particularly happen where the AST has lapsed to a Statutory tenancy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming the landlord IS selling the thing as a business proposition. You will see these advertised as sales with tenant in situ. The tenant will be informed of the change.

There have been posts here in the past about tenants finding they have a new landlord and the new landlord is a shocked as they are. this could particularly happen where the AST has lapsed to a Statutory tenancy.

Just so we are clear about this particular case...

The deposit was given before 2004. Although contracts have been exchanged every 6 months since there has been no change in the state of the deposit. It is unclear to me whether technically the deposit should be in one of the TDS schemes, but I'm not concerned about it at this point.

I've now met the potential "investor" / new LL, he is aware that I want to continue renting. If he does go ahead with the purchase it will be his pension.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can a contract be passed on without both parties agreeing to it? My contract has my signature and my landlord's on it, so I don't see how that can be changed unless all parties (me, current landlord, new landlord) agree to it. If a part of it can be changed at will without such agreement then what's the point in signing at all? It seems to invalidate the whole concept of a contract between two people, particularly since I might be happy to agree to some things with one person but not another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming the landlord IS selling the thing as a business proposition. You will see these advertised as sales with tenant in situ. The tenant will be informed of the change.

There have been posts here in the past about tenants finding they have a new landlord and the new landlord is a shocked as they are. this could particularly happen where the AST has lapsed to a Statutory tenancy.

ASTs don't "lapse" to a statutory tenancy.

Only incorrectly documented ASTs, created before about 2003, turn into Statutory tenancies.

After about 2003, all newly created tenancies turn into ASTs, regardless of any deficiency in the documents, unless there is a documented specific intention to create some other kind of tenancy.

Admittedly, it could be bloody difficult to determine the due date for service of notice for a, post 2003, undocumented tenancy, but it will still be an AST.

tim

Edited by tim123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can a contract be passed on without both parties agreeing to it? My contract has my signature and my landlord's on it, so I don't see how that can be changed unless all parties (me, current landlord, new landlord) agree to it. If a part of it can be changed at will without such agreement then what's the point in signing at all? It seems to invalidate the whole concept of a contract between two people, particularly since I might be happy to agree to some things with one person but not another.

Because the law allows for it to happen.

It doesn't make the contract worthless because the new LL is bound by all the obligations in the contract. Why does it matter to the tenant who it is who "owns" the contract?

tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so we are clear about this particular case...

The deposit was given before 2004. Although contracts have been exchanged every 6 months since there has been no change in the state of the deposit. It is unclear to me whether technically the deposit should be in one of the TDS schemes,

You and everybody else.

Until there is a court case on the issue no-one will know.

However, the longer we go on, the less chance there is of someone in this circumstance having a problem and asking a court to judge, so I suspect that we will never get a definitive answer.

tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the law allows for it to happen.

It doesn't make the contract worthless because the new LL is bound by all the obligations in the contract. Why does it matter to the tenant who it is who "owns" the contract?

It matters because any agreement I make is between me and whoever I make that agreement with. I may not want to make the same agreement with someone else. It's also suggests that in principal anything could be changed on a whim - there's no absolute prohibition to doing so unilaterally, which means you can't be completely certain that you can rely on anythign written into a contract.

"Because the law allows it" is never a good reply unless the question is merely about the letter of the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so we are clear about this particular case...

The deposit was given before 2004. Although contracts have been exchanged every 6 months since there has been no change in the state of the deposit. It is unclear to me whether technically the deposit should be in one of the TDS schemes, but I'm not concerned about it at this point.

I've now met the potential "investor" / new LL, he is aware that I want to continue renting. If he does go ahead with the purchase it will be his pension.

:rolleyes:

This happened to me...my tenancy started in about 1998, and renewed AST every year.

The renewal is a NEW agreement every time...and from a couple of years ago the deposit was moved to the TDS.

check the dates on your latest AST.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suppose the property was sold to a 'Van Hootstargen' (or whatever his name is - the 60s LL who terrorised his tenants) you have no rights? ie you would never have become one of his tenants knowing his 'approach' when dealing with tenants but automatically become one because he bought the property.

Yep, that's how it works

tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it not go periodic as it is supposed to unless the LL is re-possessing the property? ie you can give one months notice and the LL can give two.

Because if it does, the aggency can't go creaming off fees each time the contract is renewed.

tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it not go periodic as it is supposed to unless the LL is re-possessing the property? ie you can give one months notice and the LL can give two.

as Tim said, I was silly, the agent convincing and I lost money.

thanks to HPC, I now know better...currently on a periodic with the new landlord...HE didnt want the annual fees either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 144 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.