Paul_f
26-03-2005, 12:44 PM
Right you bright lot out there, help me with this. A friend of mine (a letting agent) has asked the following question and I would welcome your opinions:-
A tenancy held by XYZ Company [not sure if they are limited, but have assumed so in the absence of anything to the contrary] - [my italics, Paul_f] expired on 05.02.05 and whereas they are now in Receivership, a Mr and Mrs Kitchen (not their real name) remain in occupation, as he was one of their fitters. Rental arrears amount to £750 for March 2005 and the same amount now due for April and £800 of the deposit had to be used to make up the rental for January and part of February.
The Landlord Clients work and live in Germany and are dependent upon rental income to meet their mortgage repayments. He can be particularly volatile, which in the circumstances is understandable.
I would appreciate your advice, bearing in mind that Mr and Mrs Kitchen have failed to complete and return a Tenancy Application form, and without guaranteed work from XYZ they are obviously experiencing financial problems. Where do we stand legally?.
My opinion is as follows:-
If the company is in receivership then presumably the Official Receiver should be approached as he is responsible for the rent. However as the tenant is a company i.e. a tenant at common law you must first issue a notice to quit (can't use the S.21 route as it's not an AST remember) and that should probably be sent to the Official Receiver I would think, with a copy to the occupants. Mr and Mrs Kitchen are probably no longer employees of the company if they were made redundant? This however does not probably absolve the company for their liability to pay rent.
If the tenants don't respond or move out upon instructions from the Official Receiver then you will have to instigate court proceedings. You have also got to decide whether you want to offer the occupants a new tenancy, but it appears they have no means of support other than Housing Benefit. However in the meantime I would be very careful in not collecting rent from the occupants as by doing so could create a new AST.
What do you think?
A tenancy held by XYZ Company [not sure if they are limited, but have assumed so in the absence of anything to the contrary] - [my italics, Paul_f] expired on 05.02.05 and whereas they are now in Receivership, a Mr and Mrs Kitchen (not their real name) remain in occupation, as he was one of their fitters. Rental arrears amount to £750 for March 2005 and the same amount now due for April and £800 of the deposit had to be used to make up the rental for January and part of February.
The Landlord Clients work and live in Germany and are dependent upon rental income to meet their mortgage repayments. He can be particularly volatile, which in the circumstances is understandable.
I would appreciate your advice, bearing in mind that Mr and Mrs Kitchen have failed to complete and return a Tenancy Application form, and without guaranteed work from XYZ they are obviously experiencing financial problems. Where do we stand legally?.
My opinion is as follows:-
If the company is in receivership then presumably the Official Receiver should be approached as he is responsible for the rent. However as the tenant is a company i.e. a tenant at common law you must first issue a notice to quit (can't use the S.21 route as it's not an AST remember) and that should probably be sent to the Official Receiver I would think, with a copy to the occupants. Mr and Mrs Kitchen are probably no longer employees of the company if they were made redundant? This however does not probably absolve the company for their liability to pay rent.
If the tenants don't respond or move out upon instructions from the Official Receiver then you will have to instigate court proceedings. You have also got to decide whether you want to offer the occupants a new tenancy, but it appears they have no means of support other than Housing Benefit. However in the meantime I would be very careful in not collecting rent from the occupants as by doing so could create a new AST.
What do you think?