I'm not sure their is precedent for this via the PRTB. I'm not familiar with a repossession scenario of a LL property.

It is not difficult to dispute it either way. Very simple. The Bank should expect it. Your contract is with the Landlord. Dispute this now. In writing. To all concerned parties.

You have no contract with the the Bank. They have no power over you in this afaik. They are not a legally named third party in any of your dealing right?

I am not sure they can have benefit from your contract with LL. Presuming you get a copy. However there is obviously a contract in place since you have paid money and that has been established historically.

One issue that you might consider is what is going to happen in relation to the deposit.

Hmmm.... that's a tricky one alright. Would I rather be the bankrupt landlord who is having his property repossessed and will have a big debt millstone around his neck for the foreseeable future, or would I rather be The Jackal who has sat out the largest peace-time property crash in the history of the World? It's a close call, but I'd rather be The Jackal.

+1, but than I have no empathy

Firstly see non-glee policy viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1047

Secondly you can not speak for the forum as it has no collective voice.

Thirdly, you speak of consequences in a manner which appears to assume the tenant is like a piece of dirt. To be kicked. Bizarre.



You make too many assumptions and fill in the gap with cherry-pick-make believe statements to be of any worth undermining credibility and then ending on a strawman to distract from your initial fantasy to top it off.

It's important that contributions are to be constructive and beneficial otherwise users will simply ignore and in many cases rightly so.

This looks very like the bank coming in and using shock therapy to get you out of the house quick before you start thinking about your rights.

I would immediately inform them in writing that you intend to contest the eviction and are getting in touch with the PTRB to lodge a formal objection. I would expect them to reply again with some aggressive behaviour but stand your ground and let them know you have the right to appeal the eviction. I bet they soften their stance and then negotiations can begin on hown long you need to find another place to live.

If they have issued eviction notice in a dubious manner (the agent) dispute their false claim.

You could also request in writing documentation to prove the veracity of their notice otherwise you will regard it as spurious even fraudulent, if they then proceed to move any further you could claim that any further notices (trying to correction their mistake get you on a little clause elsewhere) you may threaten to proceed with defamation too (not 100% on this put if they where to move to an agency to get you out this might have sway). Also Make it conditional.

Remember you are dealing with only the LL/agent not the Bank. Forget them other than the evidence/events. You can also refuse to deal with their agent since you believe they have committed an illegal act or some transgression. State that. They'll have to prove otherwise. Act only with honour and integrity as you have always done in the past, paying rent and you clean compliance with the contract to date.... they will also have to prove otherwise if they wise to dispute this).

You could also counter claim if this causes you grief. You can also indicate that as a valid course of action.

So to summarise.

Dispute. The notice.
Claim. Bank is repossessing and trying to enjoy benefit of LL contract (which I think may be illegal) - they will have to refute this claim. If it is true they can not.
Present. Evidence of Agents & Surveyors comments and reactions. To back up the above and also will need to be disprove if they wish to go further.

Give them 5/7 working days to address.

Send as registered letter.

It's a game of Ping Pong now at this stage. Documenting everything claim and dispute using the facts as they seems to be good enough to warrant no invention unlike the agents tactics.

Like the user above says. SHOCK tactics. Ignore. Deal with it in a calm manner.

But isn't a repossession just a sale? The landlord was the owner of the house (even though he had a mortage), but now he has sold/transferred his ownership rights on the house to a third party (the bank).

I really don't see why people don't think that it's a sale?

Who is the original contract between?

The Occupant & LL or the Occupant & The Bank?

The Occupant & LL. And that contract states that the LL is within his rights to kick out the tenants if he sells the house.

Indeed but within defined parameters as set out by the legislation governing the PRTB but the OP indicates the Landlord appears to be in the process of repossession. If that is the case then the Landlord can not sell the house. This is the key point that needs to be clarified.

You see if it turns out that the Landlord is not selling the house and the tenant could have stayed on then they are eligible to claim for compensation perhaps via litigation or the PRTB.

But that comes back to my original statement - that repossession is a form of selling. I don't know how the law handles it though.

See a "form of selling", it totally unclear. It can not be regarded as it is on foot of legal proceedings against the Landlord so it can't be a sale by normal definition. So how does this legal action against borrower impinge on the legal contract in place between the Property Owner who create the original contract and Occupant.

Not clear cut in any manner afaict. Therefore as an occupant you would be obliged to leverage your position so as to mitigate current or further loss.

I am surprised at your comment as IMO I am neither expressing glee nor am I speaking on behalf of the forum.

There are many examples of pinsters arguing for reprocessions and my comment highlights an increased awareness of the consequences of this policy. I would have thought it is a logical conclusion that if a property is repocessed any/all tenancies would be terminated.

I am at a complete loss as to how you infer my comment implies that tenants are dirt and there to be kicked


My assumptions are based upon the The Jackel's comment that alternative property available in the market today is of a lower standard relative to his current rent

Perhaps it is a stretch to call this Landlord a "good landlord" in hindsight. I have no basis for such a statement.

IMO most of my comments are constructive and benifical but they do represent an alternative viewpoint.

Erm, in that case I'm not sure they can evict you?

Should you be keeping rent from the current landlord to give to the bank?