Is this tenancy Assured or Assured Shorthold?

[jghomer]

I have inherited a tenant who originally signed up with the previous house owner in 1993. He was given the S20 prior to signing his AST and everyone thought all was well.

However, it has since come to light that the landlord at the time changed his mind about the flat he was offering the tenant. The S20 and original tenancy says Flat 8, but the tenant moved into Flat 10. Whilst the tenant was quite happy with the change as the flats are almost identical, I have been advised it may be a potential problem with regard to whether the tenancy IS legally an AST and not Assured.

I have read that the law could rule in this instance that it is obvious that the tenancy of flat 10 was on the same basis as that of flat 8, and indeed I hope this would be the case. I also understand that once a tenancy is created with any given landlord, it's type cannot be changed even if the tenant moves into another property owned by the same landlord, and hoped this rule might save me too?!

Any thoughts or advice appreciated, as the thought of assured tenants does not sit well with me!

[Andy Parker]

I assume that the flat move was prior to 1997 otherwise there is no problem (and there was no new agreement when the tenant moved).

[Andy Parker]

I have just read your post.Flat 8 was never occupied so please ignore my previous post.I think it could be argued that the original agreement is ineffective as the tenancy was not taken up on the property mentioned in it.You may have some recourse against the vendor if this turns out to be the case as there is a duty of disclosure when selling property.In your situation I would get a definitive answer (even if it meant spending money on a solicitor!).

[lawstudent]

I suspect the advice will be that a court could jump either way on this one. The original tenancy was apparently correctly granted as an AST of Flat 8, and the fact that the tenant was in fact given Flat 10 might be regarded as a legally insignificant change falling under the "de minimis curat lex" principle (the law is not concerned with trifles) to which both LL and tenant had consented. On the other hand, county court judges do have a tendecy to be unduly pedantic.

There was a young lawyer called Rex
With diminutive organs of sex
When charged with exposure
He said, with composure,
"De minimis non curat lex"

[jghomer]

Thanks for the help chaps. Much Appreciated.