Landlord lying to mortgage holder and letting agent

[WhistlingPot]

A few years ago we discovered (through debt collectors arriving at our door) that not only had our landlords not been paying their mortgage for the past 6 months, they hadn't had permission from their mortgage holder to let out their house.

Thanks to Shelter, we learnt that the mortgage company had legal rights to evict us with two days notice, should they wish, regardless of the notice period we had signed up to.

Being 5 months pregnant at the time with our second child, and in the understanding it would be a long term let (we had been there 4.5 years) this was an exceptionally stressful time. We were served formal notice by the ll as they were obliged to put house on the market. We found somewhere else asap, less than ideal (by borrowing and using up valuable savings) and in fear the mortgage company could still evict sooner.

We were then evicted from the new place after 6 months due to ll selling up (even though had promised long term after initial 6 month let) and rented another place. We have just gone into social housing due to being evicted again as our home has just been sold (after being promised long term).

We have never defaulted on any rent and always looked after our homes, paying for thorough end of tenancy cleaners etc.

AIBU to feel agrieved that

A) Our original ll failed to sell house but gained permission to re-let, and the new tenants are still there?

B) The letting agent allowed the property to be let (and managed it) without permission from the lender, therefore compromising our position?

Do we have any legal rights?

I'm not sure that being evicted from your home because of fraud is "a bit inconsequential".

OP is right to pursue a change in the law. Will this person be prosecuted for fraud?

I entirely agree that you have been an innocent victim of fraud and that there should be comeback.

did I read right that the LL is still able to rent the place?

Apparently so, special subject. I've no idea how formal an arrangement it is, but according to neighbour, the new tenants moved in about a couple of months after we left, and are still there.

And yes, at the disruption and stress being "a bit inconsequential".

I think moving 3 times in 4 years, under such stress is a lot for any child.

Your posting on legal not chat - you have no legal recourse that is viable - lots of children move, lots of children live in squats and refuges - you now have social housing. I work with women who's stories probably make me a bit unsympathetic to a few moves , I'm sorry.

The la in this case are on the surface fine and upstanding pillars of the community, always in the local rag sponsoring this that and the other local event etc.

What disturbs me the most is that this in large is a fairly acceptable situation to many (certainly on this thread).

Whoever else finds themselves on the receiving end of this kind of situation is unlikely to rock the boat as they are then dependent on references etc to move forward. And very likely too stressed in finding somewhere else to live to speak out or make a fuss.

And who is to protect vulnerable women being on the receiving end?

From a few years ago? You are in social housing now, why would you have legal rights to a property you don't own or live in?

My concern is whether we have any legal right to have acknowledged what happened was wrong and unacceptable, and whether others could be better protected.

Yes we are lucky now to have social housing, but I get a feeling this is something that is being abused by landlords to save their own arse. In that "it'll be fine if we fuck them over, the tenants can always get social housing".

I am going to stress just how lucky we are to have had a Ha property come up. It could be very different for someone else, that's why I am exploring what the legal position is and want to see some kind of campaign to change things for others.

MellowAutumn moving house is right up there with other major life events such as child birth, marriage/divorce and death of a loved one. It doesn't matter whether a life event event is positive or negative, they are all stress inducing and we all vary in our ability to cope.

I used to work in mental health. For many of our service users something like this would be the final straw to tip them over the edge.

My dsis has paranoid schizophrenia (talented, beautiful and lovely, more a danger to herself then anyone else). She is being targeted by hereoin addicts on the estate she lives, who are abusing her good nature and taking money from her. I am scared stiff they are going to spike her or something and we have involved the police. There is nothing they can do until there is firm evidence of a crime, but have advised she gets a dog (she doesn't like dogs) or gets away for a while. She normally comes to stay with me when life gets difficult for her. Her care coordinator is on leave and on sick leave and won't be back for weeks. The long and the short of it is I haven't been able to help, or be around as much as she needs. We all needed my suddenly and unexpectedly almost homeless like a hole in the head. So yes, that's my back story if it helps understand why I might be feeling a bit passionate on this issue.

But it's all fine and we should take it on the chin because apparently the nation needs us to be collateral damage.

God forbid those who bought beyond their means, or the banks who positively encouraged them, take responsibility for their errors in judgement.

Perhaps real justice would see them become collateral damage, rather than the more vulnerable in our society?

Whistling you are right to pursue justice for all and you are right to post it in legal. Don't let a few projecting landlords hold you back.

Thankyou unreal.

I most certainly will not!

The last few moves were due to house being sold, private LL entitled to do that. Tough

Thankfully it will change soon with Labours 3 year leases. Btl landlords will have to treat tenants with more respect.

Kilmuir, the point is we were thrown into chaos due to ll fraud, and having to find somewhere asap. We weren't able to find anywhere that offered a secure long term let. Even though we had the knowledge of what to look for, we were had by the short and curlies in taking what was available. We were led to believe on both other occasions that they would be long term, after an initial 6 month trial. We did nothing wrong but the lls changed their minds. In hindsight we should perhaps have held out for social housing, but at 7 months pregnant at this point, it felt wrong, uncertain and an alien concept (never previously needed to consider it an option, knew nothing about it) plus we had savings/could borrow from family.

Unreal, I'd like to think labour's proposals to give longer term contracts is an answer, however it would have had no affect on our situation at all. Under their proposals, lls can still give notice to sell or move themselves or family members in.

It's odd, the fury on the other thread at benefit fraudsters, yet lls seem to be fair game at getting away with it.

No effect. Tut.

Re: the point upthread about changes meaning tenants paying more, or having to have longer term agreements, I disagree.

I think the banks, supported by the government, should take responsibility for those in negative equity, as a result of bad banking practice which saw people taking on mortgages that were high risk and clearly beyond them. Together with an insufficiently regulated letting system, it has quite frankly knackered our housing market.

Such properties could either be forced onto the market for first time buyers to inhabit, or form a new housing association to provide long term lets.

Long term agreements are not a problem for tenants if they want to get out early, they find a new tenant to take over, or pay for a la to find one.

Either way, it is no excuse for lls to commit fraud and get away with it under the guise of collateral damage.

If you want to start a one-woman campaign just go ahead with it. If you want to make a worthwhile contribution to this issue then you could consider making regular donations to Shelter. They've got the experience and they've got the credibility, too.

p.s. Tenants do not get evicted by the lender with only two day's notice, not if they pay attention to correspondence arriving at the property addressed to "The Occupier" informing them of the court-date for an application to repossess. You made it sound like almost any tenant could be made homeless in 48 hours and that's absolutely not true.

' forced on to the market' ??? 'government and banks to take responsibility ' ?? How do you think this will end up being paid for?Administrative and legal costs would be through the bloody roof and at the end of the day tenants or tax payer or both would be through the roof for frankly a pathetic outcome for a very small handful of individuals.

Read up on cost to benefit accounting

Read Shelters website - look at all the attempts that have been made to reform.

As Bitter says write your letters and see how far you get

The government will take the flak whichever route they choose to sort out this mess. The banks ought to take responsibility but they won't unless forced and even if forced will wriggle out of it somehow.

Hopefully the market will crash sooner rather than later. The more sudden the better as the banks won't have time to squeeze people and avoid financial penalties. They will have to find a new large scale solution, as you suggested, a housing association for defaulting properties or taking equity from homeowners.

yes cause a housing crash rather than a gentle deflation will be great for everyone wont it? They need to build social housing which will bring down house prices gradually and therefore rents and the hideous amount we spend on housing benefit and the BTL market will even its self out.

This mess ? ie Op had to move because of a dodgy landlord - I hardly see it on the level of Coulson - but hey I could be wrong - the OP could be on the front of the Daily Fail tomorrow for all I know - I bet she gives good sad face :0

So it still seems that a landlord committing fraud is neither here nor there then, when it can cause a family the major stress of potential homelessness.

I didn't know that about the letters to the occupier minimising the risk if a 2 day eviction. You speak as if this is common knowledge. It isn't. And nor is it my intention to exaggerate or play on people's emotions. I am posting from my experiences and information I was given at the time. There is no need to be dismissive.

It was Shelter who alerted us that is could be an eventuality, but we didn't get that far being so late in pregnancy, our priority was to get a roof over our heads and avoid giving birth in a b&b up to two hours away.

It is my experience that you have to become very knowledgeable, very quickly and under a lot of stress. I think this places the more vulnerable in our communities at higher risk.