poppet2 Â Â 13 #1 Posted July 9, 2018 If a property is sold at auction stating tenant just signed a six or twelve month AST contract, is the new landlord obliged to honour this contract? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
andysm   18 #2 Posted July 9, 2018 Generally, yes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Hippogriff   10 #3 Posted July 9, 2018 Absolutely yes. The new Landlord steps into the shoes of the old Landlord. Be careful, there are other gotchas. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jeffrey Shaw   90 #4 Posted July 10, 2018 Absolutely yes. The new Landlord steps into the shoes of the old Landlord. Be careful, there are other gotchas. Yes. T is a sitting tenant and, in technical parlance, a person in actual occupation. His/her rights therefore continue largely unaffected. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
poppet2 Â Â 13 #5 Posted July 12, 2018 Yes. T is a sitting tenant and, in technical parlance, a person in actual occupation. His/her rights therefore continue largely unaffected. I am surprised at this because apart from The 1977 Rent Act and the 1988 Assured tenants, who both have far more rights as protected tenants, I thought a contract between the old landlord and tenant would automatically expire when the new landlord purchases the property. Could new landlord not say to tenant, but that contract was between you and previous landlord, nothing to do with me? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Hippogriff   10 #6 Posted July 12, 2018 No.  Your surprise is very surprising. What protection does a Tenant have in this view of the world? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
poppet2 Â Â 13 #7 Posted July 12, 2018 But as stated in the 1977 & 1988 Acts, tenants are protected by law. But I am talking about 6 or 12 month shorthold tenancies whose landlord has decided to sell up. That is not a common situation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Hippogriff   10 #8 Posted July 12, 2018 Doesn't matter [how common you think it is]. The facts haven't changed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Bob Arctor   11 #9 Posted July 12, 2018 But as stated in the 1977 & 1988 Acts, tenants are protected by law. But I am talking about 6 or 12 month shorthold tenancies whose landlord has decided to sell up. That is not a common situation.  But the Assured Shorthold Tenancies you describe were introduced by the 1988 Act, so if the 1988 Act gives the tenant protection then the protection applies to Assured Shorthold Tenants. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
poppet2 Â Â 13 #10 Posted July 16, 2018 But the Assured Shorthold Tenancies you describe were introduced by the 1988 Act, so if the 1988 Act gives the tenant protection then the protection applies to Assured Shorthold Tenants. Â Maybe, but unlike the Assured tenancy, it has limited security of tenure. This is why I was under the impression that an incoming landlord could claim the old tenancy agreement between old landlord and tenant doesn't have to be honoured, as it's nothing to do with new landlord as he didn't make the contract. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jeffrey Shaw   90 #11 Posted July 16, 2018 ALL 1988 residential lettings are 'Assured Tenancies'. Some are ASTs; s.21 applies to them. Others aren't and these are generally called 'Standard Assured Tenancies'.  A let property can be sold subject to a continuing tenancy. The concept is largely the same as a freehold reversion being sold subject to an existing long leasehold. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Hippogriff   10 #12 Posted July 16, 2018 This is why I was under the impression that an incoming landlord could claim the old tenancy agreement between old landlord and tenant doesn't have to be honoured, as it's nothing to do with new landlord as he didn't make the contract.  This is the impression that is most definitely incorrect. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...