PDA

View Full Version : Non Paying sitting tennant



Gail1966
09-04-2010, 09:52 AM
Not sure where to post this but if it is in the wrong place please do say.

Just want to know the folllowing:

I was gifted my father's bungalow in 2005. He lives there rent free and maintains it as if it is his own. I pay nothing towards it and he does not pay any rent.

Bungalow valued at £122,000 on open market.

Now the problem. I am going through divorce and I am offsetting the bungalow against my ex's pension. However, can anyone tell me what the percentage reduction in value is for an open market value with a sitting tennant (life expectancy approx 12 years) who does not pay any rent?

jeffrey
09-04-2010, 10:51 AM
How come T lives there rent-free? When did this bizarre situation start? What documentation governs his occupation?

mind the gap
09-04-2010, 11:43 AM
How come T lives there rent-free? When did this bizarre situation start? What documentation governs his occupation?

Please explain why you think it is bizarre that a daughter lets her elderly father live rent-free (apart from a commitment to meeting maintenance costs), in the property which he formerly owned but has now gifted to her?

jeffrey
09-04-2010, 11:46 AM
Please explain why you think it is bizarre that a daughter lets her elderly father live rent-free (apart from a commitment to meeting maintenance costs), in the property which he formerly owned but has now gifted to her?
That would not be bizarre, no; but I read post #1 as meaning that the father and T are different people!
"Sitting tenant" is a technical term- I know how you love those- meaning a person subject to whose existing rights one acquires a property; that surely therefore excludes the father whose existing rights were the full ownership that he gave to OP!

mind the gap
09-04-2010, 12:12 PM
That would not be bizarre, no; but I read post #1 as meaning that the father and T are different people!
"Sitting tenant" is a technical term- I know how you love those- meaning a person subject to whose existing rights one acquires a property; that surely therefore excludes the father whose existing rights were the full ownership that he gave to OP!
I see! Well, rather than constructing a complicated and unlikely interpretation of the situation based on the strict legal definition of 'sitting tenant' when that interpretation, by your own admisison, is 'bizarre' , why not just apply the basic rules of grammar to what OP says:

I was gifted my father's bungalow in 2005. He lives there rent free and maintains it as if it is his own. I pay nothing towards it and he does not pay any rent.


Let us assume that in the absence of convincing pragmatic indicators to the contrary, a pronoun (in this case, 'he') relates to its nearest antecedent noun ('my father'). Add to that the unlikelihood that OP is a landlord and tenant lawyer or a tax expert (otherwise she would not be asking the question she is asking) and thus that her use of the term 'sitting tenant' may be more casual/less 'accurate' than yours would be.

Then it all makes perfect sense.

Linguistics and common sense to the rescue!

Now we've sorted all that out, does anyone know the answer to OP's question?

jeffrey
09-04-2010, 13:33 PM
Common sense? Such as 'admisison', you mean? Bizarre linguistics, I agree.

mind the gap
09-04-2010, 13:58 PM
Common sense? Such as 'admisison', you mean? Bizarre linguistics, I agree. Now who's rattled?!

At least I know that when a typing error is all you can find fault with, my argument must have struck home. (You would just never admit it!):)

jeffrey
09-04-2010, 14:28 PM
'Rattle' would cover:
a. snakes;
b. Simon; and
c. babies'.

worzelgummage
09-04-2010, 15:26 PM
Not sure where to post this but if it is in the wrong place please do say.

Just want to know the folllowing:

I was gifted my father's bungalow in 2005. He lives there rent free and maintains it as if it is his own. I pay nothing towards it and he does not pay any rent.

Bungalow valued at £122,000 on open market.

Now the problem. I am going through divorce and I am offsetting the bungalow against my ex's pension. However, can anyone tell me what the percentage reduction in value is for an open market value with a sitting tennant (life expectancy approx 12 years) who does not pay any rent?

0%, I would say your father has an AST and you could evict him if desired.

jeffrey
09-04-2010, 15:45 PM
0%, I would say your father has an AST and you could evict him if desired.
No, that's wrong. Any letting at nil rent is outside the 1988 Act and cannot be an AST/SAT. See paragraph 3 in Schedule 1 to the Act.

westminster
09-04-2010, 22:08 PM
Not sure where to post this but if it is in the wrong place please do say.

Just want to know the folllowing:

I was gifted my father's bungalow in 2005. He lives there rent free and maintains it as if it is his own. I pay nothing towards it and he does not pay any rent.

Bungalow valued at £122,000 on open market.

Now the problem. I am going through divorce and I am offsetting the bungalow against my ex's pension. However, can anyone tell me what the percentage reduction in value is for an open market value with a sitting tennant (life expectancy approx 12 years) who does not pay any rent?

Your father is not a so-called sitting tenant and you need to seek professional advice, both from a solicitor and an accountant. This isn't a DIY and cross-fingers situation.

And how on earth do you know that your father's life expectancy is "approx 12 years"? Are you God, or Death?

mind the gap
09-04-2010, 22:20 PM
And how on earth do you know that your father's life expectancy is "approx 12 years"? Are you God, or Death?

I was wondering that (before I got sidetracked into another futile attempt to teach Jeffrey something :rolleyes:)!

However I decided that it must be one of those statistically-based estimates which insurance/mortgage/pension companies and other quasi-legal people use when working out the likelihood of a property being re-possessable from Rent Act tenants within x years or whatever.

I might however be totally wrong.

Ericthelobster
10-04-2010, 11:15 AM
Now we've sorted all that out, does anyone know the answer to OP's question?I suspect the OP has taken one look at all the contributions to this thread so far, come to the conclusion that the members of this forum are as mad as box of frogs, and headed for the hills... ;)

mind the gap
10-04-2010, 11:23 AM
I suspect the OP has taken one look at all the contributions to this thread so far, come to the conclusion that the members of this forum are as mad as box of frogs, and headed for the hills... ;)
Quite! Perhaps I'll see her there. I like hills.

(In petulant voice)...anyway, Jeffrey started it!

westminster
10-04-2010, 12:09 PM
I was wondering that (before I got sidetracked into another futile attempt to teach Jeffrey something :rolleyes:)!

However I decided that it must be one of those statistically-based estimates which insurance/mortgage/pension companies and other quasi-legal people use when working out the likelihood of a property being re-possessable from Rent Act tenants within x years or whatever.

I might however be totally wrong.
One would hope that OP hasn't been poring over life expectancy tables and calculating how long till Dad dies (the average for a UK male is apparently 77.4) but it's certainly more plausible than my theory.

I did also wonder whether it might be a doctor's opinion, but while one can imagine a two year prognosis, or even a five year one, I couldn't see how a doctor could make an accurate prediction much beyond that.

mind the gap
10-04-2010, 13:01 PM
One would hope that OP hasn't been poring over life expectancy tables and calculating how long till Dad dies (the average for a UK male is apparently 77.4) but it's certainly more plausible than my theory.

I did also wonder whether it might be a doctor's opinion, but while one can imagine a two year prognosis, or even a five year one, I couldn't see how a doctor could make an accurate prediction much beyond that.

Perhaps there is a family curse which strikes down all the seventh-born males at a certain age. (Apologies to OP if this is not the case).

What I do know is that British teachers who retire at 55 have a normal life expectancy (approx 77 for men as you say and I think 82 for women), but teachers who carry on until 65 then have a life expectancy of only 18 months more (i.e. 66.5yrs) :eek:

jta
10-04-2010, 17:33 PM
teachers who carry on until 65 then have a life expectancy of only 18 months more (i.e. 66.5yrs)

Hey guys, we could have a sweepstake on this, how many tickets for you Jeffrey? :D

mind the gap
10-04-2010, 17:41 PM
Hey guys, we could have a sweepstake on this, how many tickets for you Jeffrey? :D


Very funny. I can however reveal that the odds of my staying in teaching until 65, jta, are precisely... 0. I trust that answers your question.

Don't worry, I shall still be running round the hills while you and Jeffrey are sitting in your bath chairs in the Charity Home for Retired Curmudgeons.

westminster
10-04-2010, 20:41 PM
Perhaps there is a family curse which strikes down all the seventh-born males at a certain age. (Apologies to OP if this is not the case).
Did OP indicate that she dwelt in Royston Vasey?

jeffrey
11-04-2010, 17:01 PM
I don't think that Chubby Brown would like that...