Breadvan.... help!
Discussion
Breadvan - or another legally learned chap on here.
I'm in a bit of a panic here and I have had cause to doubt myself on a rather awkward situation:
My wife, daughter and I rented out our house and moved a couple of years ago to rented accommodation next to my parent's in law.
We rented a big barn conversion on a development owned by a well known couple in my local area. In short they bought a title, called themselves Lord and Lady, and live in a £1m tudor manor house which they rent out for weddings.
In short, they didn't live up to their title. When we left, we had had no heating for 6 months, during winter where we were heating a barn with electric fan heaters as the ground source heat pump went kaput. They were uncontactable as with the full knowledge it needed fixing, they went off in their £100k RV to Portugal.
After leaving, our letters to recover these costs and even our tenancy deposit has been ignored. It's not protected. In short, I've filed a very detailed claim, and I am waiting to see if it is defended.
I've received a letter from Lady Muck's solicitor's. Lord Muck passed away 6 months ago. The property was jointly owned by Lord and Lady Muck, and they are both named on the tenancy agreement.
However, the solicitors wrote to me today informing me that 'only Lord Muck had signed the tenancy agreement and therefore Lady Muck is not party to the agreement'. Also that Lord Muck's estate is insolvent, and if I took a claim against his estate it would not be paid. Of course Lady Muck knew full well we were tenants there, as she dropped a card and introduced herself when we moved in and it's 100 yards from their house.
Now, I was 100% sure they were talking b
ks, but panic has taken over me and a solicitor saying this has wavered my thinking a bit.
Could you possibly reconfirm what I thought is correct, and if there's a particular case law to confirm. Lady Muck is still using the bought title, still lives in the Manor House, and still owns the property we lived miserably in. In fact last weekend, she ran a wedding on the estate where the takings are circa £7k...
Please help!
I'm in a bit of a panic here and I have had cause to doubt myself on a rather awkward situation:
My wife, daughter and I rented out our house and moved a couple of years ago to rented accommodation next to my parent's in law.
We rented a big barn conversion on a development owned by a well known couple in my local area. In short they bought a title, called themselves Lord and Lady, and live in a £1m tudor manor house which they rent out for weddings.
In short, they didn't live up to their title. When we left, we had had no heating for 6 months, during winter where we were heating a barn with electric fan heaters as the ground source heat pump went kaput. They were uncontactable as with the full knowledge it needed fixing, they went off in their £100k RV to Portugal.
After leaving, our letters to recover these costs and even our tenancy deposit has been ignored. It's not protected. In short, I've filed a very detailed claim, and I am waiting to see if it is defended.
I've received a letter from Lady Muck's solicitor's. Lord Muck passed away 6 months ago. The property was jointly owned by Lord and Lady Muck, and they are both named on the tenancy agreement.
However, the solicitors wrote to me today informing me that 'only Lord Muck had signed the tenancy agreement and therefore Lady Muck is not party to the agreement'. Also that Lord Muck's estate is insolvent, and if I took a claim against his estate it would not be paid. Of course Lady Muck knew full well we were tenants there, as she dropped a card and introduced herself when we moved in and it's 100 yards from their house.
Now, I was 100% sure they were talking b
ks, but panic has taken over me and a solicitor saying this has wavered my thinking a bit.Could you possibly reconfirm what I thought is correct, and if there's a particular case law to confirm. Lady Muck is still using the bought title, still lives in the Manor House, and still owns the property we lived miserably in. In fact last weekend, she ran a wedding on the estate where the takings are circa £7k...
Please help!
Edited by JustinP1 on Saturday 5th April 12:44
SV8Predator said:
Before someone 'legal' comes along to help, can you post again in a clearer manor (sorry!) so that we can understand exactly what your grievance is, and what exactly you're panicking about?
Two landlords are named on the tenancy agreement.Landlord left alive is claiming that despite being joint owner of the property, and now sole owner of the property, as only the dead landlord signed the contract, they are not party to it.
Thus our tenancy deposit that they spent up together has gone up in smoke with the dead landlord's insolvent estate.
I think this is b
ks despite a solicitor writing to me this morning and telling me so.Who's right?
He lost his deposit because it was not protected and the landlord died and was apparently insolvent
and he also wanted to sue for the increased costs of heating using electric heater because the landlord did not fix the heating on the property.
wants to know if he has a claim against the landlord's wife
edit
oh he's already summarised it now
and he also wanted to sue for the increased costs of heating using electric heater because the landlord did not fix the heating on the property.
wants to know if he has a claim against the landlord's wife
edit
oh he's already summarised it now
ging84 said:
He lost his deposit because it was not protected and the landlord died and was apparently insolvent
and he also wanted to sue for the increased costs of heating using electric heater because the landlord did not fix the heating on the property.
wants to know if he has a claim against the landlord's wife
Not quite.and he also wanted to sue for the increased costs of heating using electric heater because the landlord did not fix the heating on the property.
wants to know if he has a claim against the landlord's wife
I've already filed the claim in the name of the surviving landlord. The husband and wife both owned the property and are both are named on the contract as landlords.
Only the dead landlord signed the contract.
Edited by JustinP1 on Saturday 5th April 13:44
JustinP1 said:
Only the dead landlord signed the contract.
I admit that the thought of that does panic me a bit also. But I'm in the middle of reading a book about Haitian zombies.Is your 'panic' about losing the deposit? And if such a big panic that you have to post on the internet rather that quizzing your solicitor about it, are we to assume that this deposit is rather a lot of money?
JustinP1 said:
Two landlords are named on the tenancy agreement.
Landlord left alive is claiming that despite being joint owner of the property, and now sole owner of the property, as only the dead landlord signed the contract, they are not party to it.
Thus our tenancy deposit that they spent up together has gone up in smoke with the dead landlord's insolvent estate.
I think this is bks despite a solicitor writing to me this morning and telling me so.
Who's right?
You are, for even if a letting agent signs the AST, the owner/landlord of the property is still accountable.Landlord left alive is claiming that despite being joint owner of the property, and now sole owner of the property, as only the dead landlord signed the contract, they are not party to it.
Thus our tenancy deposit that they spent up together has gone up in smoke with the dead landlord's insolvent estate.
I think this is b
ks despite a solicitor writing to me this morning and telling me so.Who's right?
IanA2 said:
How much are we talking about?
Tenancy Deposit of £1200. There's also the penalty for not protecting it which is three times that.We couldn't use 60% of the property for 4 months as the temps as the temps were in single figures.
Electricity bill was £4000 plus for the year.
There's also a sum because he tricked us into paying sums towards an insurance agreement to him for electricity for a communal sewage pump and insurance for the system. It transpired that the insurance agreement ended years ago, and one of the tenants was unwittingly paying for all the communal electricity for the pump.
SV8Predator said:
JustinP1 said:
Only the dead landlord signed the contract.
I admit that the thought of that does panic me a bit also. But I'm in the middle of reading a book about Haitian zombies.Is your 'panic' about losing the deposit? And if such a big panic that you have to post on the internet rather that quizzing your solicitor about it, are we to assume that this deposit is rather a lot of money?
To keep the totally cost down, I filed myself, but, they are 'on hand' with a junior barrister ready to draft a reply to the defence. However the presumption was the claim would not be defended.
However, they are not open at the weekend... and to save me (and the wife) worrying about it, I thought I would put it out to the learned masses of PH.
It may also be that I put the paid work Breadvan's way also should she get the same solicitor to put forward a Defence on the same basis.
Edited by JustinP1 on Saturday 5th April 13:58
Wings said:
JustinP1 said:
Two landlords are named on the tenancy agreement.
Landlord left alive is claiming that despite being joint owner of the property, and now sole owner of the property, as only the dead landlord signed the contract, they are not party to it.
Thus our tenancy deposit that they spent up together has gone up in smoke with the dead landlord's insolvent estate.
I think this is bks despite a solicitor writing to me this morning and telling me so.
Who's right?
You are, for even if a letting agent signs the AST, the owner/landlord of the property is still accountable.Landlord left alive is claiming that despite being joint owner of the property, and now sole owner of the property, as only the dead landlord signed the contract, they are not party to it.
Thus our tenancy deposit that they spent up together has gone up in smoke with the dead landlord's insolvent estate.
I think this is b
ks despite a solicitor writing to me this morning and telling me so.Who's right?
I am wondering whether the solicitor knows some kind of loophole I don't, or they are just trying to bluff me.
JustinP1 said:
I have a solicitor on it. they are 'on hand' with a junior barrister ready to draft a reply to the defence.
It may also be that I put the paid work Breadvan's way also should she get the same solicitor to put forward a Defence on the same basis.
Something I don't understand, all this worry, all this 'panic', solicitors, junior barristers, 'defence', all over a £1200 deposit?It may also be that I put the paid work Breadvan's way also should she get the same solicitor to put forward a Defence on the same basis.
10 Pence Short said:
Did you do anything to mitigate your losses with regards the heating problem?
Was the agreement to part fund the other items in the tenancy contract or was it a separate agreement?
Yes 10Pence, lots. Including getting an expert engineer out myself. However, he did not want to open a can of worms problem (which is was) and modify the system without the LL consent. When I put this to the LL he said he's come to fix it himself, and told me that he did not authorise me to use anyone but his contractor.Was the agreement to part fund the other items in the tenancy contract or was it a separate agreement?
It's quite a long and traumatic story TBH and not a happy time when my 2 year old daughter was sleeping in the freezing cold.
Contract made provision for potential for charges, and these were outlined orally with a scrap of paper showing his workings.
SV8Predator said:
JustinP1 said:
I have a solicitor on it. they are 'on hand' with a junior barrister ready to draft a reply to the defence.
It may also be that I put the paid work Breadvan's way also should she get the same solicitor to put forward a Defence on the same basis.
Something I don't understand, all this worry, all this 'panic', solicitors, junior barristers, 'defence', all over a £1200 deposit?It may also be that I put the paid work Breadvan's way also should she get the same solicitor to put forward a Defence on the same basis.
The panic is that we have spent considerable effort and cost already to discover that a solicitor has stated in a letter that our claim is fatally flawed, and we will be left this sum out of pocket.
You know sometimes you write a simple word and look at the spelling for ages thinking you've spelt it wrong?
That's how I feel at the moment - I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but it would be nice to hear that for sure.
Edited by JustinP1 on Saturday 5th April 14:16
First of all, when they said Lady Muck is not responsible, did they provide a basis for this assertion?
It's been a while since I had this but if they are both named on the agreement then they are both a party to it regardless of who has physically signed the form.
An additional point that is in my head is a husband and wife can be a sole entity in law i.e. she could be liable for his acts even if he was the sole signatory.
It's been a while since I had this but if they are both named on the agreement then they are both a party to it regardless of who has physically signed the form.
An additional point that is in my head is a husband and wife can be a sole entity in law i.e. she could be liable for his acts even if he was the sole signatory.
I may be wrong, but looking at this logically, if they are right and the wife was not party to the contract, that would have meant in the event of the husband dying, the wife would not be able to enforce any aspect of the contract. It would also beg the question as to why she is named on the agreement at all, if there was no intention for her to be a party.
Jasandjules said:
First of all, when they said Lady Muck is not responsible, did they provide a basis for this assertion?
It's been a while since I had this but if they are both named on the agreement then they are both a party to it regardless of who has physically signed the form.
An additional point that is in my head is a husband and wife can be a sole entity in law i.e. she could be liable for his acts even if he was the sole signatory.
Your middle sentence was my thought entirely. I just want to make sure I'm not going mad!It's been a while since I had this but if they are both named on the agreement then they are both a party to it regardless of who has physically signed the form.
An additional point that is in my head is a husband and wife can be a sole entity in law i.e. she could be liable for his acts even if he was the sole signatory.
No basis for the assertion was given other than as she did not sign it (although it is noted she is named) that she is 'not party to the Agreement'.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff