PDA

View Full Version : Ex-L abroad; to what extent is new L liable for breach?



dancecat
22-01-2009, 13:48 PM
Hey guys,

I'll put this in breife bullet points in order of events... prob make more sense then...

Rented a property last year 2008 (jan)
Passed management onto an estate agent...
Moved out Dec 2008.
Landlord didn't use Tenancy Deposit Scheme....
We threatened him with legal action....
He sold his company and moved to Oz.
However - His company.... is the actual name on the tenancy.

The new owner claims this should be a slightly different name, it was an 'error'.

4 times is an error? The advertising board = an error?? The new owner - was a part owner when we signed... but now owns the full company.

He claims - it was private rented and nothing to do with the company.

Not what the contract says...

Who's liable? Who can we take to court? Can we still claim 3X the deposit even though it wasn't there fault... it was the old owner?

Thanks In Advanced.

gdturn
22-01-2009, 17:49 PM
Hi dancecat

If it was me I'd go after the company, not a named individual, and let the new owner explain to the judge why he thinks he's not liable.

Just a lay person's opinion though, better wait for the experts to come along...

jeffrey
22-01-2009, 17:54 PM
Rented a property last year 2008 (jan)
Passed management onto an estate agent.
Please clarify. If you were T, renting a property from L, what 'management' did you pass on?

jeffrey
22-01-2009, 17:56 PM
A company is a legal entity, separate from its shareholders/members and its directors. So changes in the composition of these are irrelevant.
If the company now is the same as the company then, it's liable to you.
You can verify ownership via HMLR, using LR Online and paying £3 for a copy of the registered title. Look for a leasehold, as it's a flat.

dancecat
22-01-2009, 19:30 PM
jeffrey - we signed the tenancy with the LL (who was director of the company in question).... It was the company's name on the tenancy. not the owner of the property.

He passed the management of the property onto a lettings again 7 months after we signed.


The company is exactly the same... except the owner of the house has sold his share of the company (only recently) to one of the other directors.

The company does NOT own the house. Yet is the company's name on the agreement.

I think thats a bit clearer?

Thanks btw :)

thevaliant
23-01-2009, 08:39 AM
jeffrey - we signed the tenancy with the LL (who was director of the company in question).... It was the company's name on the tenancy. not the owner of the property.

He passed the management of the property onto a lettings again 7 months after we signed.


The company is exactly the same... except the owner of the house has sold his share of the company (only recently) to one of the other directors.

The company does NOT own the house. Yet is the company's name on the agreement.

I think thats a bit clearer?

Thanks btw :)

Let me understand this.

You (A) rented off a company (C). At the start of the tenancy, C was owned by first owner (X) and during the period, X sold his shares to new owner (Y). Then X moved to Australia.

Y is now claiming that you are renting from X the whole time, despite all paperwork being in the names of A (you) and C.

I presume he is doing this because you have no realistic recourse against X.
I would stick to my guns, insist that it is C that is liable for anything you are claiming and, if necessary, take legal action against them.

Paul Gibbs
23-01-2009, 10:18 AM
if the agreement states that the LL is the company then you can sue the company for 3x deposit. The alleged 'error' in the contract is (in my view) unlikely to be accepted by a court.

Do you know if its worth suing the company? Can they discharge any judgment?

only possible issue is that Co does not own land - I dont think its relevant but would need to look into the point. Connom sense suggests that you are entitled to assume the Co owned the property when the agreement was offered to you. Now you are aware the Co does not own that should not make a diff its the knowlege of the parties when the contract was entered into.

anyone have different thoughts?

dancecat
23-01-2009, 20:41 PM
Thanks guys

Thats exactly what I thought... but im no legal expert! :)

Spoke to a sol today too... they confirmed what you guys have just said! They even said, the new 'owners' should have looked into everything what they was taking over.

IF they was misled in anyway - that's an issue with the EX owner... not our selfs.

Preston
23-01-2009, 21:42 PM
.

anyone have different thoughts?

Hi

I'm probably being a bit slow, but I'm still confused on who owned what and when.

Dancecat - I think you need to look through the replies so far and, if you can, try to write down in simple terms who owned the property when and who was named on the tenancy agreement and when.

Preston

dancecat
24-01-2009, 00:14 AM
The OLD owner of the company owned the property.

The company are / where the landlords as stated in the contract.

The OLD owner sold his company - but not his house... he still owns that.


Even though he still owns the house - it's still the company liable... so we've been told... or is this ill information?

e.g.... letting agents don't own the house - but they are liable for various things. kinda the same?

jeffrey
25-01-2009, 14:47 PM
The OLD owner of the company owned the property.

The company are / where the landlords as stated in the contract.

The OLD owner sold his company - but not his house... he still owns that.


Even though he still owns the house - it's still the company liable... so we've been told... or is this ill information?

e.g.... letting agents don't own the house - but they are liable for various things. kinda the same?
This still makes no sense. If X (old owner of company) owned house, X is owner- and company (C) is irrelevant- when letting it. X is liable.
As C is not owner, C cannot let- and so C is never liable either!

dancecat
25-01-2009, 19:55 PM
hummm..... so even though it's the companys name on the agreement.... they aren't liable?

That doesn't make sense :(


I appreciate the fact they don't own the house - but still the name is written in black and white on the contract! If there's any problems... then the company should then take it up with the old company owner?

jeffrey
26-01-2009, 11:53 AM
What doesn't make sense is the fact that C appears as the landlord. Why was that?

dancecat
27-01-2009, 10:58 AM
No idea.... could it be todo with tax etc? Putting it in the companys name?

However - a chat with the new director on friday.... explaining although its not his fault + the C doesn't own the house... they are liable... if the LL has done the "dodgy" then thats an issue they should take up with him.

Yesterday - had a phonecall from LL in Oz.... paid the deposit by bank transfer straight away!

Soo what ever C said to the LL.... it worked!

Thanks guys :)

LandlordLee
27-01-2009, 11:40 AM
Are you wanting to take action regarding your deposit becasue you have not got it back?

dancecat
27-01-2009, 12:44 PM
as said in the above post... we recieved the deposit back yesterday.

no need for further action now! Thankfully.

jeffrey
27-01-2009, 13:04 PM
as said in the above post... we recieved the deposit back yesterday.

no need for further action now! Thankfully.
Great news! Glad to have helped.