Rent Receiver

Hi all,

I received a letter last night from a rent receiver stating that they had been appointed over the property I am currently renting, and had a certified copy of correspondence from the bank stating which section etc of mortgage which gave them the power to do this. Have looked for alot of documents which is fine, lease, schedule of contents, ID etc etc.

I rang my landlord to discuss and couldn’t get through and when he returned my he left me a message (he is currently on holidays out of the country - *nothing sinister). He basically said that it was a mistake and that it is sorted and he will talk to me when he is home on Saturday.

My concerns are this:

  1. Even if he says everything is fine and I should continue to pay his account, I assume that the rent receiver is in the position of power and not the landlord?
  2. Is it up to the landlord or myself to talk to the receiver to resolve the issue - I would assume the landlord but I don’t want to just take his word for it.
  3. Should I contact the bank directly? Should I request a extract from the mortgage contract that they claim has been breached? I want to ensure I don’t pay the receiver if I shouldn’t and then be held liable for the rent not paid to the landlord.

I think my best bet going forward is to stop the SO to the landlord for the moment until I hear from the Rent receiver that the issue has been sorted?

Anyone with prior experience, suggestions etc? All input is welcome as I have little/no knowledge in this area and fortunately (for them) nobody in my personal circle has had the same experience. I know that this does not affect my lease so its more looking for peoples input into how to clarify exactly what the story is?

I want to get an idea of this before discussing with the landlord as I don’t want to be caught on the hop.

Thanks for any and all input

Equally you want to ensure you don’t pay the landlord and be held liable for rent not paid to the receiver. And you don’t want to pay neither of them because that would leave you liable to eviction.

Presumably the receiver will also be changing the locks since they’re essentially asserting ownership of the property.

I’d get some free legal advice. FLAC? Threshold? PRTB?

Just my 2c worth.

Hold on to the next rent payment because if a receiver has been appointed it is unlikely that you will get the deposit back from the landlord.

Part of the information requested is to who holds the deposit (it is an agent currently). The document also states that the rent receiver will be responsible for returning the deposit after an inspection.

Although I don’t see myself getting the deposit back as there are bits and pieces in the house that will be picked up upon (window locks are fubar, and other bits) which I had foolishly pointed out to landlord when we moved in but never documented. Thats for another thread though.

You are right of course and that is my dilemma. As it stands I am more siding towards paying the receiver as I have documentation from them, whereas the landlord (who is in the legal game) is saying its fine just pay me, its a misunderstanding.

I am quite sceptical as to how a misunderstanding could go on for so long that a rent receiver was actually appointed though.

I will get onto the PRTB and see what they say.


Unfortunately you are in a very common situation and I would advise you talk to Threshold or check out their website for the relevant info as they have extensive knowledge of how to best approach this dilemma, the devil is in the detail and you won’t really be able to post all the facts on a MB. Is there a High Court order in place or just the bank receiver? , How long have you lived in the property? what is the feeling of other residents if you live in an apartmment block etc. The PRTB can only give you some grounding factual info and FLAC/CIC will just refer you to Threshold anyway so go straight to the horse’s mouth

That is what kinda threw me, I would have thought some sort of court judgement would have been necessary. I haven’t got the documents to hand, however they seem to have just quoted section xx of mortgage agreement between xxxx and xxxx.

It is a single property so no other residents involved. Threshold seems to be the place to go for more information.

Thanks again for the help.

I have heard as a rule of thumb in these situations it is:
Court Order/Judgment - Pay rent to the receiver
Bank receiver - Continue paying rent to the landlord unitl a court order is in pace.

However, each individual circumstance is different. Whoever you pay, if you are not in arrears and are in a fixed term lease one of either party cannot instigate eviction proceedings for arrears with the PRTB as you are clearly acting in good faith. Be sure to retain proof of payment of rent

I rang threshold and they were very helpful.

For anyone else in this position, this is the gist of the conversation:

Court appointed receiver:
Clear cut, you pay the court appointed receiver, end of story.

Bank Appointed Receiver:
It comes down to a judgement call as to who you pay.

If you do not pay landlord, they could possibly bring a case against you with the PRTB for non-payment of rent.

If receiver give essentially what could be classified as a letter of comfort, stating they will take over all responsibility for maintenence, deposit etc and the landlord brings a case, this letter will stand to you and they would be obliged to return the money to the LL.

So it looks like the safer option is to pay the Landlord even though I know that he is not paying the mortgage that has been taken out with a state owned bank! :angry:

I am strongly contemplating paying the receiver as if something like this happens in 000’s of cases, the banks (read taxpayers) are being 8-

****If you have any issues please do not take the above as advice and contact Threshold, PRTB etc yourself. ****

You could make paying the landlord even safer if you asked him to send you a letter stating that you should ignore the rent receiver’s letter.

Should you not put the rent money aside - even open a sub-account or have a statement showing that it is there - then write to and cross-copy both your ‘landlords’ asking them to sort it out among themselves as to who receives this money.
It seems unfair to leave you as ‘piggy in the middle’ and you will definitely want clear guidance from each party as to the one true creditor in this matter.
I would not pay the Landlord, something bad has happened here and that payment may be trousered, if he has not honoured his mortgage for a long period another non-payment will not bother him, this may not even be recorded by him as rental income at all (might be used to pay for his holiday!) leaving the Receiver still looking for the rent. It is ironic that the tenants are the ones anxious to pay their way (default there is not as kindly treated) while many delinquent Landlords obviously do not share this sense of responsibility - common enough anomaly nowadays, I’d say.
How many tenants are now actually paying banks or receivers either directly or undirectly, rather than their original Landlords?
Turkish - You could end up needing a receiver of your own!
I’d be cautious here, meself, that Landlord fella of yours has had enough holidays at your expense!


Hard to see it being a simple “mistake”

it’s not as simple as that unfortunately. You would be breaking the terms of the lease and could potentially have a case against you lodged with the PRTB by the original landlord or receiver (depending on establishing who has locus standi) , then have a judgment registered against you in respect of the ‘arrears’ which could affect your credit rating or other matters as a PRTB adjudication has the same standing as a court order. You have to pick one party and pay rent solely to them.

I doubt if any case would result if a payment was deferred until the ‘real’ landlord was determined.
This will happen mighty fast if letters seeking clarification are sent - my money is on the Receiver! would be the best place to seek advice :smiley:

Do you have any idea how long that would take?? Months before there might even be a PRTB hearing let alone an adjudication.

Plenty of time for the truth to come out before the tenant risks their credit rating…

Given that there is potentially a breach whichever way the OP goes, escrow would be my suggestion.

I’m in the same situation. A mortgage receiver is appointed under the terms of the mortgage so a court order is not necessary. However, we asked for a copy of the deed of appointment - which we got, and which makes it pretty clear that the bank appointed them so no scope for ifs or buts from the landlord.

Getting your deposit back seems to be a tricky aspect of these situations, but I’d not take your current landlord’s representations at face value.

I would imagine that, given all was OK with respect to obligations on the tenant’s side, it would be much easier getting ones deposit back from a Receiver - the transaction would presumably be handled in a much more straightforward and business-like way.
I doubt if they’ll be off on holiday when you need to contact them anyway!
I have heard of some distressing scenarios where tenants were left high and dry - sometimes with not even an attempt by Landlords to counter-claim on supposed dilapidation, just a flat ‘can’t pay / won’t pay’ stance. I suppose it has worked for some of these little property magnates with their banks so maybe they extend this attitude to all other creditors!
I know of one case where the BTL LL was quite honest with a departing tenant - there could be no return of deposit until a new tenant was in with their deposit because there was simply no money to pay it at the proper time. It was paid up after a few weeks, with apologies, but that ‘gap’ was a worrying time for the first fella as well as the obviously stretched LL who was sort of waiting for Peter to pay Paul.
He was not and is not alone!
A thought:
Where does the Receiver get the deposit money from?
Is there a charge, on top of unpaid mortgage and maybe case costs etc, to the delinquent Landlord?

I’m well aware of the vagaries of the PRTB system and procedures. I’m only approaching the situation from a ‘what’s the worst that could happen’ point of view. As it stands the safest thing is to pay rent to the landlord and leave him to fight it out in the courts with the lender. The lease is between the landlord and tenant until a court allows the receiver to ‘step into the shoes’ of the landlord.
It’s a shite system with the usual moral hazard crapola we are all too familiar with these days. The idea that a tenant could be somehow seen as acting honestly or ethically by giving some assurance they will set rent aside until the issue is resolved has no precedence in contract law.

But has the Landlord not seemingly already fought and lost in Turk’s case? Just never bothered to tell him about it and fecked off, spending money on holidays rather than paying his debts, leaving the Receivers to so abruptly introduce themselves.
I would no more give more money to this Landlord than I would to a drunk on the street!
I still say the Receiver is now the real LL here!