<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Landlord Law BlogReceivers | The Landlord Law Blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/tag/receivers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk</link>
	<description>From landlord and tenant solicitor Tessa Shepperson</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:35:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Another tenancy deposit problem – what happens when the receivers step in?</title>
		<link>http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2009/11/11/another-tenancy-deposit-problem-%e2%80%93-what-happens-when-the-receivers-step-in/</link>
		<comments>http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2009/11/11/another-tenancy-deposit-problem-%e2%80%93-what-happens-when-the-receivers-step-in/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tessa Shepperson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Readers problems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Receivers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tenancy deposits]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/?p=376</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2009/11/11/another-tenancy-deposit-problem-%e2%80%93-what-happens-when-the-receivers-step-in/"><img align="left" hspace="5" width="150" src="http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/norwichh1.jpg" class="alignleft wp-post-image tfe" alt="Houses" title="Houses" /></a>I have been contacted by a landlord who has drawn my attention to a thread on the popular LandlordZone forum: “Briefly, the rental property has been in the hands of the receivers since July 2008. The receivers accepted the tenancy and collect rent from the tenant (the tenancy is now periodic). The deposit was originally...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-408" title="Houses" src="http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/norwichh1.jpg" alt="Houses" width="150" height="150" />I have been contacted by a landlord who has drawn my attention to a <a href="http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=23748">thread on the popular LandlordZone forum</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>“Briefly, the rental property has been in the hands of the receivers since July 2008. The receivers accepted the tenancy and collect rent from the tenant (the tenancy is now periodic). The deposit was originally protected by the landlord, however, Mydeposits cancelled the landlord&#8217;s membership (and therefore the protection) because the landlord was subject to a receivership order, which is contrary to the rules of the scheme.</p>
<p>The deposit has not been paid to the receivers (so it appears they are not liable). The landlord cannot protect the deposit as it&#8217;s against mydeposits&#8217; rules (I guess it&#8217;s possible the DPS would accept it). Tenant may not succeed in a claim for return of the deposit because the tenancy hasn&#8217;t ended. So, how can the tenant take action under s.214(1) to ensure the deposit is protected when firstly, the landlord did comply and the cancellation was not his decision, and secondly, the deposit has not been &#8216;re-paid&#8217; so can there be any duty to comply a second time when the landlord has complied once.</p>
<p>It seems completely crazy to me that the scheme is permitted to cancel a protected deposit in these circumstances &#8211; the whole point of the schemes is to protect against landlords/agents&#8217; &#8216;bad&#8217; behaviour. Landlords cannot unprotect a deposit during a tenancy without evidence of reprotection, so why are schemes allowed to do this?”</p></blockquote>
<p>This does seem to be a difficult situation and one that may become more common with more landlords falling into receivership. What do you think?</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span><div style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a href="http://twitter.com/share?url=http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2009/11/11/another-tenancy-deposit-problem-%e2%80%93-what-happens-when-the-receivers-step-in/&via=TessaShepperson&text=Another tenancy deposit problem – what happens when the receivers step in?&related=:&lang=en&count=horizontal" class="twitter-share-button">Tweet</a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2009/11/11/another-tenancy-deposit-problem-%e2%80%93-what-happens-when-the-receivers-step-in/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Good news for tenants &#8211; receivers of rent now eight times more likley</title>
		<link>http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2009/06/10/good-news-for-tenants-receivers-of-rent-now-eight-times-more-likley/</link>
		<comments>http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2009/06/10/good-news-for-tenants-receivers-of-rent-now-eight-times-more-likley/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tessa Shepperson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News and comment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[buy to let]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[possession claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Receivers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/?p=283</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2009/06/10/good-news-for-tenants-receivers-of-rent-now-eight-times-more-likley/"><img align="left" hspace="5" width="150" height="150" src="http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/thumbnail-for-excerpts/tfe_no_thumb.png" class="alignleft wp-post-image tfe" alt="" title="" /></a>A report on the BBC site today regarding problems experienced by buy to let landlords indicates that mortgage companies now seem to be more willing to appoint a &#8216;receiver of rent&#8217;, as opposed to evicting the tenant so they can sell as mortgagee in possession. This is good for tenants, as it means that they...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8092407.stm">report on the BBC site today</a> regarding problems experienced by buy to let landlords indicates that mortgage companies now seem to be more willing to appoint a &#8216;receiver of rent&#8217;, as opposed to evicting the tenant so they can sell as mortgagee in possession.  This is good for tenants, as it means that they can stay on in the property, paying their rent to the mortgage company rather than the landlord.</p>
<p>The report states:</p>
<blockquote><p><span style="font-style:italic;">&#8220;In the first three months of 2008, there were just 300 receivers of rent appointed, compared with 900 repossessions.  In the first three months of this year 2,400 receivers of rent were appointed &#8211; an eight fold increase and far more than the number of buy-to-let repossessions.&#8221;</span></p></blockquote>
<p>If you are a tenant whose property is being repossessed by your landlord&#8217;s mortgage company, it is always worth getting in touch with the mortgage company and suggesting that they should consider appointing a receiver of rent and allow you to stay in the property.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span><div style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a href="http://twitter.com/share?url=http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2009/06/10/good-news-for-tenants-receivers-of-rent-now-eight-times-more-likley/&via=TessaShepperson&text=Good news for tenants - receivers of rent now eight times more likley&related=:&lang=en&count=horizontal" class="twitter-share-button">Tweet</a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2009/06/10/good-news-for-tenants-receivers-of-rent-now-eight-times-more-likley/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

