Nigel Roberts

The commenters who have said you need legal advice are right on target.
***********************************

From your description it seems that the facts are not entirely clear here - there is a contradiction - a company that has been dissolved cannot be dormant ("sleeping") - it has ceased to exist.

So your first step is to determine whether the company still exists in law or not.

Companies House in the UK are trialling a service where you can look at every single filing, ever, free of charge.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/

If the company has not been dissolved, your contract with them still obtains although suing for any losses may be pointless (they may be a man of straw).

If the company HAS been dissolved, all contracts it had are probably automatically void from the date of strike-offf. Note that there is a difference in law between 'void', and 'voidable'.

So, you would appear to have occupants of your house without a written agreement. The law on this is complex, so get advice from a specialist housing rights solicitor (who will know all the rights the former tenants have).

So let's underline this:

See a solicitor.
-------------------

Now.

And don't try and do anything yourself before getting that advice since you may do something that later you are advised would not have been the best course of action for your interests.

And please update us.... Read More

Yes.. simply put, it's alienable separately. You can get rid of it (if you want to).

In other words, imagine you sell the shop to one person, and the flat to another.

You create long leases on both, since leasehold is well understood by purchases and (as important) banks/building societies.

But that leaves the freeholder (you) with the remainting obligations of the freeholder, and you may not want that. Even if there's little actual cost, the admin costs of collecting a ground rent might be a pain . . .

So, you can (just as an example) put the freehold into an dedicated LLP or LTDco (which for the sake of argument I'll call an SPV or single-purpose vehicle), and you can then include the appropriate interest in the SPV with the sale of the leases. This gets you out of the picture completely once both sales are completed.

And it leaves the two owners of the new properties to worry about mantaining common areas etc, themselves.

The land registry even know about such things under the name 'commonhold'.... Read More

Good luck with this process.

I'm thinking that everyone who has property interests over and above a single owner-occupied dwelling needs a primer in basic land law, and what is possible with both legal and equitable interests (including trusts).

Owning property in sole (or joint) personal names is not the only option. Oligarchs have been doing this for years, using both trusts and companies. Hence the latest TED tax in the UK ('taxation on enveloped dwellings').

Good accountancy advice is paramount -- particularly as, if taxation changes to your disadvantage, it may not be possible easily to unwind certain holding structures (this applies particularly to trusts). Sometimes simplicity and flexibility are more important that minimising tax.

Let us know how you get on.... Read More

Mark's advice is right on the money. For NewCo (a.k.a. the SPV) I'd consider (with advice from your accountant) whether to use an LLP (Limited Liability Partnership) instead of an LTD (private company limited by shares).

Neither is "better" in any absolute sense, but each has advantages the other does not.

Both of them have separate legal personality (that is they exist independent of their members/partners/shareholders). Both of them have limited liability.

LLPs are REALLY cheap (20 pounds or so) and flexible. The most interesting feature of all is that as far as HMRC is concerned they are virtually invisible. (The technical name here 's "tax transparent"). This means that although treated like a Limited company, the tax man does not tax them -- instead he taxes the partners on the distributions they receive from the LLP.

This may work to your advantage, or you may prefer the separate taxation of a traditional Limited Company. Your accountant should be able to advise on the best structure for you.... Read More

Jamie - there are two sides to every debate. Your crass characterisations of tenants, and in particular people claiming benefits are not merely offensive, they are plain wrong.

Here's a tale of of someone I know well.

Mr and Mrs X were good tenants.

He had a very good job in the City, paying well into six figures. She was a housewife. Because they were fairly mobile, rented a four bedroom house adjacent to the 'post part of Essex' i.e. just outside Birds of a Feather country.

They were on an assured shorthold tenancy and had been there a couple of years.

Mr X died of a heart attack on the Tube.

The next thing I hear (within a week or so of his death) is that their landlord has served her with a Section 21 Notice to Quit.

The reason? Because upon his death, she applied for Widow's Benefit and according to the agent 'the Landlord has a strict 'no-DSS' policy'.

Legal? Yes.
Morally questionable? In the extreme!

There were certainly enough liquid funds for her to continue living there in the short and even medium term. And she would have, in the normal course of things have downsized soon enough.

But here we see landlords (and this was an individual, not a faceless corporation) who, uncaring, unfeeling, and frankly, counterproductive to their own interests in a switchover with no void month, caused a newly bereaved person considerable extra distress by making her homeless, at the exact time she needed comfort and security.

I hope you wouldn't do the same, in the similar circumstnaces, but from the tone of your writing I am not certain you wouldn't.

And as a landlord myself, I wouldn't dream of doing this. If I wanted to gain possession, I'd first of all discuss things with the tenant. I'd have send a condolence card, not a Notice to Quit!... Read More

... Read More

... Read More

... Read More

... Read More