Firm closing

[WTF]

3 hours ago, manxfisherman said:

That's definitely shitty behaviour then.

much better to let the debtors remove assets then ??

[manxfisherman]

6 minutes ago, WTF said:

much better to let the debtors remove assets then ??

I'm not a fan of seizing a mans tools, no.

[NoTailT]

16 minutes ago, Wavey Davey said:

But then he’s driving round in a brand new Ferrari whilst locking people out of his property over rent arrears. 

We don't know all the facts.

But why should someone's social position mean they should let someone off paying rent on an asset they own?

I don't particularly like Mike. We've had lunch a few times and socialised, he isn't someone I'd do business with, but I think there's more to the story than Bodycraft are letting it seem like.

Edited October 20, 2022 by NoTailT

[Wavey Davey]

Just now, NoTailT said:

We don't know all the facts.

But why should someone's social position mean they should let someone off paying rent on an asset they own?

That seems to be a lack of the sympathy you claim to have on display again. You maybe have to look at the optic. Multi millionaire Ferrari driving multiple high value commercial property owner locks a small business out of their premises over claimed rent arrears. There’s another in a similar position that I know who is making a few small business owners lives hell enforcing leases as he wants to leave his properties sat empty. I don’t know much about this case but the other one is a really nasty bastard who has taken the opportunity of covid to properly fuck some of his tenants over. 

[John Wright]

All this stuff about being let off or harsh and cruel landlords, or loans etc, seems to me to be irrelevant and avoiding the real issue. 

I’ve no idea who is right or wrong.

Several posters have mentioned the case being on the court lists for some time. 

It’s the law in the Isle of Man, s.1 of the Landlord & Tenant ( Miscellaneous Provisions ) Act 1976, that a landlord can’t evict or lock out a tenant without a court order. It applies to both domestic residential leases/tenancies or commercial ones. To evict/lockout without a court order can be a criminal offence.

If the tenant is in arrears the way forward is to go to court to forfeit the lease. The court must give relief from forfeiture if the tenant pays off the arrears and the landlords costs. S.1 exists to protect tenants from unscrupulous landlords who might be tempted to preempt the court, just as the courts power to evict protects the landlord from feckless tenants.

Im not saying either in this case are unscrupulous or feckless. Just pointing out the law and explaining why it exists.

[NoTailT]

14 minutes ago, Wavey Davey said:

That seems to be a lack of the sympathy you claim to have on display again. You maybe have to look at the optic. Multi millionaire Ferrari driving multiple high value commercial property owner locks a small business out of their premises over claimed rent arrears. There’s another in a similar position that I know who is making a few small business owners lives hell enforcing leases as he wants to leave his properties sat empty. I don’t know much about this case but the other one is a really nasty bastard who has taken the opportunity of covid to properly fuck some of his tenants over. 

But if he drives around in a Ford Ka it's okay? What relevance does the choice of vehicle have?

Many landlords are principled, too principled for their own good. Some are total bastards. I think I'm only saying what many are thinking but - for optics - wouldn't say.

Businesses are under squeeze. The buck stops with Government to keep the economy buoyant.

Someone quoted £50k/Yr rent, is that really sustainable for a small gym plus all the other associated costs with the business? Plus they seem to have had over £21k in COVID support money. I don't know. But it seems a lot of money. I'm pretty sure the last thing mosts landlords want to do is have a legal battle.

I'm assuming something happened at the court hearing the other day that gave MOP authority to do what they're doing. It was a debt recovery hearing ultimately.

[WTF]

13 hours ago, John Wright said:

All this stuff about being let off or harsh and cruel landlords, or loans etc, seems to me to be irrelevant and avoiding the real issue. 

I’ve no idea who is right or wrong.

Several posters have mentioned the case being on the court lists for some time. 

It’s the law in the Isle of Man, s.1 of the Landlord & Tenant ( Miscellaneous Provisions ) Act 1976, that a landlord can’t evict or lock out a tenant without a court order. It applies to both domestic residential leases/tenancies or commercial ones. To evict/lockout without a court order can be a criminal offence.

If the tenant is in arrears the way forward is to go to court to forfeit the lease. The court must give relief from forfeiture if the tenant pays off the arrears and the landlords costs. S.1 exists to protect tenants from unscrupulous landlords who might be tempted to preempt the court, just as the courts power to evict protects the landlord from feckless tenants.

Im not saying either in this case are unscrupulous or feckless. Just pointing out the law and explaining why it exists.

will it exist for the landlord in this case is the question ?

Edited October 21, 2022 by WTF

[Wavey Davey]

1 minute ago, John Wright said:

If the tenant is in arrears the way forward is to go to court to forfeit the lease. The court must give relief from forfeiture if the tenant pays off the arrears and the landlords costs. S.1 exists to protect tenants from unscrupulous landlords who might be tempted to preempt the court, just as the courts power to evict protects the landlord from feckless tenants.

A helpful post. That surely relies on them having the resources to go to court over it? I’ve got one person I know who is being hounded and his business is on its arse. He likely hasn’t got the cash to pay his mortgage in a few months time nevermind take his landlord to court or pay off any arrears. 

[John Wright]

Just now, Wavey Davey said:

A helpful post. That surely relies on them having the resources to go to court over it? I’ve got one person I know who is being hounded and his business is on its arse. He likely hasn’t got the cash to pay his mortgage in a few months time nevermind take his landlord to court or pay off any arrears. 

In that case the court will evict him.

The tenant doesn’t have to go to court. The landlord does.

[Wavey Davey]

Just now, John Wright said:

In that case the court will evict him.

The tenant doesn’t have to go to court. The landlord does.

Ok thanks. That’s as I understood it. So the tenant is basically screwed then and then the landlord can recover against what’s owed too in outstanding rent? 

[John Wright]

2 minutes ago, Wavey Davey said:

Ok thanks. That’s as I understood it. So the tenant is basically screwed then and then the landlord can recover against what’s owed too in outstanding rent? 

There’s the rub for the landlord. If a lease is forfeit it comes to an end. No more rent to the expiry of the lease, just arrears to date of forfeiture. But amounts for repairs and dilapidations are still due, and any guarantor is liable.

[Wavey Davey]

1 minute ago, John Wright said:

There’s the rub for the landlord. If a lease is forfeit it comes to an end. No more rent to the expiry of the lease, just arrears to date of forfeiture. But amounts for repairs and dilapidations are still due, and any guarantor is liable.

Thanks. Yes I thought the arrears and dilapidations would still be payable so basically my friend is screwed. All this talk about people being able to walk away from bad leases is nonsense. I’d never go into business if I didn’t also own the property. 

[NoTailT]

3 minutes ago, John Wright said:

There’s the rub for the landlord. If a lease is forfeit it comes to an end. No more rent to the expiry of the lease, just arrears to date of forfeiture. But amounts for repairs and dilapidations are still due, and any guarantor is liable.

What if the landlord decides - for example with this case - to carry on a gym business using what's there?

Not saying that is the case. But intriguing point on forfeiture.

[Steady Eddie]

8 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

What if the landlord decides - for example with this case - to carry on a gym business using what's there?

I believe that landlord has done that to another business in Castletown in the last few years. It’s like buying an established business for absolutely nothing. 

[hissingsid]

It is sad when any business fails but with the current financial climate it is not going to be the last non essential business to close it’s doors.    I think a lot of nail salons, hairdressers and others are going to follow suit.