I'll explain, when the original landlord died, my father was still the original tenant in the house under a regulated tenancy. I paid the rent for him, he was old and had retired some years before so I paid it to the original landlord. When he died, his relative turned up at the house to say he'd died and that he now owned the property. Being a little green when it comes to probate and wills etc. I simply took him at his word and was paying him cheques, made out to him personally, for the rent up to the point my own father died several years later. It was only when my dad died that it came to light he wasn't the owner of the property but rather it was in the hands of executors still who were a solicitors firm in town. It is my understanding that without a grant of probate, he should never have been coming to the house to take money from me..or rather it should never have been paid to him personally but to an account for the estate to distribute to beneficiaries (and I know there were other beneficiaries since they were arguing so much the estate was in probate for over 5 years). I had asked for clarification on this from both him and his solicitor. It's my understanding that should other relatives come about the rent I can still remain liable. I had asked for a simple assurance that monies paid to him, by me, went to the right place and for a guarantee I wouldn't be held liable should someone come forward. This has never come forward. The other issue stems from me having a dispute with the estate. I say they owe me nearly £8000 for works done to the property that the old landlord inspected personally and agreed to reimburse me for. The current issue I have stems from the simple fact that I told the estate that should they wish to collect the rent that they'd previously refused they should take me to court and i would countersue for the work. Knowing this, they have apparently assigned the house to a family member who has then failed to notify me of the assignment. This, as far as i'm concerned, is to have me fighting on two fronts. However, even though he presented me with an S48 six months after he has supposedly been put on the deeds to the house, that in itself isn't a notice of assignment or ownership but rather where to send papers to. Since the man who claims to now own the house has ALWAYS been the man I've spoken to, I would like this clarifying and I'd also like to know why he didn't notify me in the time he should have done? I'm essentially being conned out of money the old LL owed me. He gets me out the house and gets £8000 of kitchen and bathroom done for nothing. The notice I require would satisfy several things that I've been asking for. As part of the S3 i can legally ask about the money paid to him beforehand that he refuses to acknowledge. An S3 allows me, (from what I gather), to ask questions about the assignment and estate. As it stands I get no answers when I ask now. Also, without proof of assignment (or notice of assignment) can he demand rent? Especially if he's purposely left notifying me of his assignment in order to try and get the estate wrapped up before I make a claim? I'm just looking at all avenues of possibility. Paying the man his rent isn't an issue, I can pay it but I feel aggrieved at giving him money when he's blatantly tried to rip me off and done everything he can to make my life miserable not including leaving me without electricity in the upstairs of the house for 3 months, no heating in one room for nearly a year or his gardening where he pulled down fences and gates and never came back to fix them leaving ME to pay for fencing and security..

If any of the CAG members know, who would I report a breach of S3 to? Since it's a criminal offence I was thinking I might have to call the police but I'm not sure. Any advice? It seems reporting this sooner would be more beneficial to me since he's now trying to evict me (illegally since without an S3 the responsibility for rent collection etc. falls to the old landlord from what I can gather)

Hi, sorry for the delay. With regards to the court case, I'm in the middle of getting a judgement set aside. The landlord had notice served on me while I was in hospital and got a default judgement. I have been assured that it should be an easy case to have the matter set aside given I was in hospital and my defence, although late, was late only by a day and there were mitigating circumstances. The scary thing now is that he is starting section 8 proceedings to try and remove me from the house. I am actually involved in two legal battles though now. The first is with the "estate" of the relative who died. They have sued me for rent they originally refused from the death of my father up to March 2013 - I am countersuing for the costs I incurred in repairing the property that the old landlord had originally agreed to pay me for. This is in hand now and the courts have told them they MUST enter into mediation with me (they had previously refused to enter discussions) The second is now with the new landlord - who claims to have owned the house since March but only came round to see me in August. He presented me with an S48 on a scabby piece of paper and demanded all rent from that point (he also asked me to pay him the estate money directly to his bank too and I have this in writing from him). When I mentioned the works I'd carried out, he curtly informed me that he wasn't prepared to deal with matters before his "acquisition" of the property. I asked him about the many thousands of pounds directly to him, by me, and at first he flat out denied taking it originally but then conceded he had but "had full permission to do so". I am acutely aware of how estates work and I explained my concerns in that I was self-employed and had been giving him money that he was effectively not entitled to (unless he could prove otherwise) and that if the money wasn't with the estate and assets then it wasn't being taxed by HMRC and that I could be liable should other beneficiaries come forward. He even conceded that it looked odd because, in his exact words, it "could look like money laundering". I told him that I'd be happy to pay him the rent from March on the provision of a letter saying the money he'd received had gone to the estate, was distributed and I wouldn't be held liable should other relatives come forward. He left my home assuring me that he'd do this. I never received a single word from him, just an invoice from the estate solicitor and a letter accidentally sent to me that was due to go to his father explaining that was a statement of account for the estate and a cheque for £50'000. The statement of account showed ZERO income from the property i live in despite me paying over £7k to them. The short of it is, neither the (new?)landlord or the solicitor acting as executor will acknowledge the money paid to them. They act like it doesn't exist and my only assumption is that he's pocketed it, not declared it to the taxman and the solicitor dare not say anything that might incriminate their clients family. What's even more strange is that the (new?)landlord has engaged a completely different law firm to deal with me..I'm fairly certain they don't know half of whats gone on but they're under no obligation to act on it. They simply want to aid him in evicting me from the home I've lived in all my life. To be honest, this whole situation is tipping me to breaking point. There's so much I can list along the lines of harassment and awkwardness that it's starting to have an effect on my health. My question with regards to the S3 notice is that I am unsure if he can demand any rent without providing this? My understanding from what I've read online is that he must provide a S3 notice with an S48 notice; S48 alone doesn't constitute anything other than where I can send legal letters should I need to. He also needs to provide this within 2 months of acquiring his interest in the property else he's committed a criminal offence.

Just a quick question that I'm hoping one of the CAG members might be able to help me with. Can a landlord demand rent if he hasn't complied with Section 3 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985? The man who supposedly owns the house I live in turns up in August last year telling me that he was the owner, issued a Section 48 document dated March 1st and demanded rent. From my understanding, any change of landlord requires a S3 Notice as well as a S48 notice and that failure to provide a S3 is a criminal offence? An important point to raise here is that I had previously paid over £7k to the landlord before he started refusing my rent money but the estate for his late relative accidentally sent me a statement of account as they wrapped up the probate and it declared ZERO income for this property since his relative died. They desperately want me out the house and he has attempted to take me to court for the rent. I have countersued him on the grounds that he's had a lot of money off me but not declared it but I think his failure to provide a S3 notice invalidates his claim? His S48 could also be potentially invalid since it is dated 1st March but I believe that he may have acquired the property on the 17th March. I'm not sure if an s48 dated before his aquisition is valid or not either? Any help or advice would be appreciated.

You're correct. The solicitor actually phoned me and asked me what rights he thought I had to stay in the house. He wasn't particularly friendly and told me on the phone that the old LL's family wanted me out to sell the house To be honest, given my previous encounters with the solicitor I wouldn't either trust or believe anything he told me. I'm more concerned that the estate was in probate for so long and even the council wanted to know exactly what the hold up was. From what I gather there were several parties involved in claiming some kind of interest in the old LL's property which tied them up for so long but I don't trust any of these people as far as I can throw them and since my new LL joined the Private Landlord Assoc. the rentals people in the council have been far from helpful - they've not even penalised him for the crap he put us through such as leaving us with no fires through the winter and removing radiators etc saying he'd be back to fix them and never returning. Between the new LL and his solicitor I've been having kittens and then there's the whole business regarding the reimbursment of the monies I spent fixing the house for him which he flat out refuses to discuss. Apparently since he wasn't the landlord at the time he has no responsibility on the matter yet, at the same time, he's asked for the money for the rent for that period to be paid into his personal bank account. I'm also kind of annoyed at having to pay rent for a period when he flat out refused to acknowledge me as a tenant and did nothing to the house to keep it habitable. EDIT: In looking at the options to get the solicitor to handle the parts owed to the estate before the new LL officially became the owner of the property, I have found the estate is wound up and that all parties have been given their portions of the inheritance. In this instance what should I do?

I understand the general procedure for the S48 my concern comes from the way in which it's been handed to me and the information I had received a few months ago doesn't quite match what I was told to expect. When I had the meeting at the council I was told that the S48 was a guarantee that the person I was paying the rent to was the person legally entitled to receive the money and without it I could be paying rent only to have someone else, the real legal owner of the property, come along and ask me for the money that was due. Since the new LL took legal possession of the house in march 2013 what guarantees do I have that this "account" I've been told to wire money to is actually going to the right people who are entitled to the money? If he's now the owner, why not ask for all of it? The original LL died a while before my father did and rent was paid on time for about 18 months or so until my own father passed away. For several months after my fathers death I attempted to pay the rent but the LL refused to accept money from me so I stopped offering. He did this under advice from his solicitor apparently and his solicitor was kind enough to even write me a letter telling me I had no rights to remain in the house despite the very obvious legal right to inherit the tenancy. Since my father died in Sept.2011 not only have they refused rent but I have been awfully harassed by the LL who has done his absolute best to make my life a misery; removing security gates and fences at the side and back of the house, leaving rubbish and crap on my drive that he would come collect later...basically he wanted me out of the house. His original ploy was to refuse rent from me and then hit me with an eviction notice for non-payment of rent which he actually got in trouble for by my local authority. In short, I could not pay rent to someone who flat out refuses to take my money. When we had the arbitration at the civic center, I expected them to just tell him he had to take the rent from me but they told me not to pay anything until he provided an S48 I've lived in the house my whole life, I was actually born in the house and with the exception of 3 years at university I have been resident in the house permanently. My legal right to inherit the tenancy is undeniable. The original LL didn't spend a penny on the upkeep of the house and my father paid the bills for a long time. In 2008 with the consent of the old LL under the impression I'd be reimbursed I paid nearly £8000 to repair the kitchen, bathroom and electricity in the house but I never got this back so, at the very least, I feel like I've earned the right to stay here. EDIT: It's worth pointing out that I have all of the rent due in an account for safe keeping, payment isn't an issue, I just want to be sure that money I pay out is going to the people who are legally entitled to it.

Hi I'm hoping I can get some advice on here about my current landlord situation. I am currently living in a house that my father had rented from 1964 and when he died in 2011 I inherited his tenancy. There was an issue though in that my fathers original landlord had died and his estate was in probate - when I made a claim to inherit the tenancy things got a little nasty. Essentially I was told that I had no right to live here by his solicitor and he started to refuse the rent from me. I made it very clear to the landlord and solicitor that my rights to remain in the home I grew up in were very clear and it took 17 months to get a letter from the solicitor finally acknowledging my legal right to stay... I had complained to my local council about this but it seems that my landlord has since joined the Private Landlord Scheme and I now get absolutely no help from them. Anyway, when I last had a meeting at the council I was told clearly by one of the people there that my landlord couldn't demand any rent from me anyway because he hadn't served an S48 and because the house was in probate he couldn't get that S48 until it was all sorted. The landlord turned up the other day with an S48 that is dated 1st March 2013 and demanded rent from that date onwards to be paid to him but then asked me to pay the remainder into another account? One that supposedly belongs to the solicitor acting for the estate of the late landlord. When I had the meeting at the local authority at the start of the year, I was told that the S48 was proof that he was the legal landlord and person entitled to the rent and this was for my benefit because if I paid him and it turned out he wasn't the landlord I could have trouble getting the money back. This new S48 has confused me and the council seem reluctant to help me now (but they give him as much advice as he likes) - my point is this; can he demand rent from the period before he was officially pronounced as the owner of the house? Surely the "estate" should contact me with relevant paperwork rather than him? I apologise if my message sounds incoherent but this is stressing me out somewhat and I'm getting tired of all the messing around we've had to put up with for nearly 2 years. Any help or advice would be appreciated.

Hi Has anyone had any experience or joy in getting a default removed from their credit file that's there thanks to these idiots? I had a contract phone with 3 and paid it every month without fail for the entire period I owned the phone but in the last month or so, especially when I made it clear I wasn't going to renew a contract with them, I started getting strange things occur on my account. My bill was paid automatically by DD but the final bill was never submitted to the bank. I work away a lot and as a result I wasn't seeing my mail, when I returned home I found 2 bills claiming that I owed them £39 but there was no default notice. I paid it immediately and thought nothing of it until recently. I'm trying to get a new car for work and I kept getting turned down so I got a report from CheckMyFile.com and there, bold as you like, a default notice claiming that I defaulted my account but then marked satisfied. My contract was paid without a problem for the entire duration until the final month when I'm fairly sure someone was being deliberately awkward. As I said earlier, I have never received a default notice from them only two bills and it was paid promptly..so I don't see why I'm defaulted in this instance. Do I have a case to get this removed? It's going to play havok with my car finance and probably stop me getting a business bank account that I was plannign to open next month.

This is getting more weird. According to Link, Santander defaulted the account on the 14th April of 2008. Equifax have no record of Santander or Dorothy Perkins on file as a standing arrangement or as a default which should, in theory, have been registered with the CRA's when the account was first opened and then closed. Link have reported the account as defaulted in October of 2008 - Do they not have to at least match? I'm very confused now. I was under the impression that Santander would have had to default the account, registering the default with the CRA's at the time of the default and then this is switched over/renamed to Link when the debt is sold as covered by the first reply in this thread. Can a DCA like Link put an account into default if the original creditor does not?

This is the weird thing, there are absolutely no records on her file to say that she had any agreement with Santander. We've spoken to Equifax and it looks like Link defaulted the account - in fact they told her on the phone they did. The thing is, the total debt is a trifling amount and she maintains that she was unaware of any problems with the account. Anyone else telling me this I'd probably be a little sceptical but my sister is the most meticulous person I know; she keeps all her letters filed and gets onto things. Her main complaint has been that she was never given an opportunity to put the account right for a meagre £8 and when I look at her Credit File there's nothing in the history to even suggest that she had an agreement with them or a store card through Dorothy Perkins; just Link Financial. She's a bit annoyed that she has this blight on her credit record for what is a piffling amount. When she originally contacted them asking for the details of the original default, (which we've still yet to receive and is well past the 28 days), one of the managers at Link said that it was at their discretion to remove a default notice from the file and suggested that if she paid the full amount they'd remove it. She was going to do so until I told her to get it in writing and since then they've been nothing less than belligerent. I'm not sure a CCA can actually remove that or not; I know she'd happily pay the full amount to get it cleaned off (and more besides) but wheres the incentive in paying a debt if paying it isn't going to be of any use to you?

Thanks for the reply. A default is a legal notice which should be served before termination. If a DCA is collecting on behalf of a creditor, the account doesn't have to be terminated but if the account has been sold then termination should occur So in this instance, a termination from Santander should have occured? The default on her credit record shows only as Link Financial..there are no termination records, (or even ones saying settled), that have anything to do with Santander or Dorothy Perkins (who she got the store card off). I've took your advice and am writing a letter though to the Information Commissioner; at no point have I ever spoke to them about the debt so I've never gave them authorisation to do anything. We're also going to report them to the FSA since they never replied within 28 days of a letter we sent them; apparently they don't do letters because, in Links words, "we're a phone company".

Hi Everyone, The main issue here isn't for me, it's with my Sister who Link are pursuing for a supposed store card debt. We've been through swings and roundabouts to get this sorted because apparently Santander, (who provided store finance on this card), defaulted her account for £8 arrears. However, on her Equifax record there is no mention of the store card, a default or anything else placed by the original creditor - not even anything that says "settled". Santander never informed her of a default on the account and we've asked for evidence of this. Santander say they can't provide it and when we ask Link for it they say they only have a templated letter that has no date or anything else on it; essentially they're asking Link to fill this in. When speaking to Link about this the other week we were told that the original creditor has to default the account first; apprently it's a legal requirement that they have to inform CRA's when a default occurs. However they're now trying to change their mind on this. We've sent the details onto Equifax and are awaiting a response from them on this. If someone here could tell me, or guide me, as to what the legal requirements are I'd be most interested. That's not the end of it however, things get a little more sinister at this point. My sister just phoned me this morning saying that a guy from Link Financial called her, (a guy called Richard), who then started talking to HER about a debt I supposedly have with them. I don't acknowledge this debt at all but I do know it blemishes my credit record; it's actually due to drop off at the end of August because its six years are up. Surely by simply mentioning that I have a debt to her is a breach of data protection? When she queried him about this, he said, and I quote "you are down on the account as an authorised person"...whatever that means. How can we handle this? We've tried to be civil but they seem to be adopting some bully boy tactics now to try and get her to pay up..(they know I'll not pay them since I've wrote them a letter flat our refusing to acknowledge it). Any help would be greatly appreciated. Ian

That sounds pretty much like it. Thanks for the plan . My mechanic has already said he can confirm that car was going for its MOT so fingers crossed there won't be a massive fine at some point down the line. The NCP van is coming tomorrow to unclamp the car; bit annoyed its taking so long since I paid it at 1pm and I was told that the clampers clock off at 3.

Barclays will suspend payments if you tell them you are in dsipute with SCS; we're in the same boat with SCS and their poor furniture. Whatver you do, don't cancel the direct debit yourself but make sure that Barclays are aware of all your dealings. Copy them into emails and forward copies of letters. We've been waiting months for a satisfactory answer..

Don't let up for an instant. SCS will try and drag it on to the point that you'll be out of warranty so they don't need to fix the issue. They sold us a Sofa that cost close to £3000 that's never been right. The "foam" they use to fill the cushions collapsed on the chair and suite within 2 months of taking delivery. They replaced the cushions 4 MONTHS after we reported the fault and not two months later the same thing happened again. They then tried to say we'd done something to the suite to make it unusable. I wasn't best pleased about the foam cushions since the sales guy told me it had an "air cushion" that plumped itself up. He also told us it was an italian suite. Turns out the thing is made in china. Barclays finance are attempting to sort it out for us but we've been waiting since September. Whatever you do, don't leave them be. Hound them until you get a satisfactory response.