How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Clare Your Own Question
Clare
Clare, Solicitor
Category: Property Law
Satisfied Customers: 34123
Experience:  I have been a solicitor in High Street Practise since 1985 with a wide general experience.
13262538
Type Your Property Law Question Here...
Clare is online now

Q: a residential tenancy dates 1994, a lender did not

Customer Question

Q: a residential tenancy dates 1994, a lender did not register a 'unilateral interest or beneficial charge till 2014, does this give the tenant rights as a 'sitting tenant'.
Submitted: 1 year ago.
Category: Property Law
Expert:  LondonlawyerJ replied 1 year ago.
Hello I am a solicitor with 20 years experience. I will try to answer this for you.
I am afraid that I don not quite understand you question. Tenancy's granted after 1994 generally do not give rise to being a sitting tenant in the usual sense that is meant (ie a Rent Act Tenant) and the lender registering a charge is generally irrelevant to tenancy status.
If you clarify your question I will try to help.
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Thank you , so much, i have attached a five page pdf, the lender has agreed a 2 month extension on last Thursday, the question arises can the repossession order be put to one side?? i am receiving conflicting answers, any help you can give would be appreciated.
many thanks
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
The lender did not register or unilateral or beneficial interest at land registry till 20/12/2014 the tenancy is dated Feb 1994.My understanding is as the tenancy predates the unilateral and beneficial charge of the lender, this makes the tenancy 'binding on the lender' and the attached 5 page document explains more.
Expert:  Clare replied 1 year ago.
HIThank you for your questionThere appears to be some confusion in your letter as to the various legal relationships involvedI am sorry but the fact that the mortgage was taken out after the start of the tenancy is irrelevant and does not give the Tenant any extra "rights" so far as remaining in the property is concerned.As tenants they do not have a "financial interest" in the property - although they should indeed have been notified of the Possession ProceedingsThe fact that they hold a second charge on the property simply means that any excess monies after the sale of the property and the payment of the mortgage and costs have been deducted has to be passed on to them.The other arguments made regarding alterations or improvements to the property relate toe the legal relationship between the owner and the tenants and have no bearing on the mortgage company at all.Given that the arrears have now been paid off the OWNER of the property can apply to have the Possession Order set aside - and this can be backed up with an applictaion for a delay in any eviction based on the failure to keep the tenants informedPlease ask if you need further detailsClare

Related Property Law Questions