Renting land for grazing: what rights does T have?

[Atillathemum]

I have just become the tenant of a piece of 'grazing land' owned by my local authority. During my meeting with their representative throughout the entire conversation the words tenancy and tenant were used to discuss the land and after going through the clauses in the 'agreement', the annual rent etc etc I did think at first i imagined seeing instead of the word 'tenant' the word 'licensee'.....hmmm odd one thinks. Could it be my friend from the local council was in fact attempting to pull a fast one here because it seems to me that he was intentionally trying to dupe me into signing a license agreement instead of a tenancy which is obviously quite a different thing especially for what I have in mind. Therefore, the logic of this is that they have showed intention to create a tenancy verbally and in action and tried to fob me off with a license on paper. The law should back me up on the 'intention to create' bit but I wonder where that leaves any of the restrictive covenants in the agreement as to permitted usage, maintaining fences, not letting the ground get poached etc Are they all now as I strongly suspect not now worth the paper they are written on unless one party takes the other as far as court to dispute the issue??? Discuss ;)

Edited to add that it isnt agricultural land, just plain old grass.

[islandgirl]

Very interesting one. You can have restrictions in a licence as well as a tenancy so you would be bound by them if you have signed the licence. Security of tenure is obviously much less for a licence than a tenancy and I expect this is your concern. You have accepted a licence if you have signed. You could however try to argue a tenancy if they tell you to go at any point. However you will be dogged by the insecruity, especially if you wish to invest in putting stables or similar onto the land. The costs of a court case could be very high of course and the issue will be a complex one, especially if you have nothing in writing to confirm discussions of a tenancy.

[LandlordZONE]

Whether you have a license or a tenancy depends upon the situation, not the name of the agreement you sign. So, for example you may have an agreement headed license, but in reality you have a tenancy, or vice versa.
To make a license stick in court requires quite strict criteria but Councils have the resources, the expertise and overriding statutory powers to back this up and reclaim their land.
It's unlikey, unless they are completely incompetent officers of the council, they will give you security of tenure.
Suggest you seek legal advice.

[Atillathemum]

Thank you very much ppl for your replies so far.

To ellaborate further, I have witnesses who are prepared to swear on oath they saw and heard the official use only the words tenancy and reference to myself as a tenant and to cap it as he handed me the keys to the field gate he actually said 'congratulations you are now a tenant'.
I see what you say islandgirl about licenses also havin restrictive covenants which you could agree to but what I am driving at is that in the event you signed a license which later became invalidated because a tenancy has been proved to a court to have been created, surely then the restrictive covenants contained in the license are also invalid. Hence at that point you then have a tenancy with no restrictive covenants-then what happens cos this is the point where i get stuck and dont know enough to hazard a guess as to likely outcomes or courses of action :S

[agingsurveyor]

How long does the tenancy/licence last? If it's for less than a year (364 days would be common) then its probably a licence.

If the matter went to court I think that the judge would simply (!) decide whether the actual document is a lease or a licence. The decision either way would not invalidate the covenants unless they were incompatible with the decided status of the document.

[Atillathemum]

...the licence granted in the end on paper is periodic ie there is no term set-out, just 3 months notice from either party. Having spoken again today to the 'official' pointing out his repeated use of the terminology 'tenant' amongst other conduct I feel was highly dubious, his rather ill-advised reply was that they call ALL their licensees tenants and they use the two titles interchangeably. I asked him if he even knew the difference between the two positions in legal terms or the possible legal implications of doing so and needless to say he struggled for answers :| What he did again say though was that I have in fact been granted exclusive possession to the land-things that make you go hmmm!!:confused:
Edited to add that the main point of concern to me is that whether as tenant or licensee (not really THAT fussed either way)i DO have exclusive possession so that at a later date someone else cannot also be granted a licence to for example plonk 5 horses on the same field that my stallion will then attempt to either kill or impregnate. The licence agreement does not grant that though the official says it has it-the clause concerning this states that it IS "exercisable in common with all other persons having grazing rights or to whom the City Council shall hereafter grant grazing rights." Not a good situation for the above reason if they do ever decide to do that :|

[agingsurveyor]

"exercisable in common with all other persons having grazing rights or to whom the City Council shall hereafter grant grazing rights."

I would say that prima facie its a licence. Similar words are always put in a licence to deny exclusive possession although very often the licensor has no intention of letting anyone else in which may be what the official means. You could always ask him to confirm in writing that they have no such intention but I don't think that this would bind them - intentions can change. At the very least as a matter of courtesy they should be prepared to notify you before they grant rights to someone else so you can serve 3 months notice.

[Markonee1]

The 'tenancy' being of a commercial/agricultural nature and not residential can contain more onerus clauses that will not be deemed unfair as long as you are aware of them at time of contract. IMO

[first time for everyone]

I rent some stabling and grazing.

The rent is paid to someone who then rents the whole thing off the owner.

The owners property backs onto the land that is rented and is always onto the people that we rent off for one reason or another.

My supposed question is that even though there is no written agreement, just verbal on the rental, do we have the equivalent of the right to quiet enjoyment?

Though we have not been there long, we are seriously looking at moving our horses due to sometimes bizzare and ever changing do's and don'ts, who can and can't visit and times of visitation.

Your off topic thoughts are great fully received.

[pcwilkins]

The rent is paid to someone who then rents the whole thing off the owner.

What is "the whole thing"?


The owners property backs onto the land that is rented and is always onto the people that we rent off for one reason or another.

I don't understand this sentence.

Peter

[first time for everyone]

The land is owned by a property that backs onto the stables and fields.

This is then rented by the owners to a person.

We then rent a part of the stables and access to the fields off him. In practice the idea is that he can collect more fees for each part of the stabling enabling him to make a profit.

In comparison it would be like me renting a four bedroom house from the owner, then subletting it to four separate parties for more in total than my original rent.

I hope that clears things up a tiny bit.

Regarding the other part, the location of the owners don't suppose have any relevance apart from due to it's location they feel that they can and indeed still treat it as their own property, accessing it when ever and complaining to the person they rent to when they see things or people they do not agree with.

[pcwilkins]

I hope that clears things up a tiny bit.

A little.

Even if you do have the right to quiet enjoyment (I don't know if you do) it would not necessarily be breached by the "bizarre and ever changing do's and don'ts".

It depends what the dos and don'ts are exactly.

Peter

[first time for everyone]

The bizarre I would include...

Not allowing people who they have not met onto the land.

Moving the horses so that they can play "golf" in the field

Disabling water and power supplies as they don't think they are required at the time.

I could go on, but some of them are so petty to make them funny.

I was though generally after some advise to pass on, to enable a common ground approach on what we could expect from our "landlord".

[pcwilkins]

I would imagine that if they let the field to you, they are not allowed access to it without your permission. But I may be wrong.

Peter

[islandgirl]

Do you have a tenancy or a licence?
Have I understood correctly - the householders are giving the person who rents the whole thing a hard time making unreasonable demands and he is passing the demands on to you?
Do you know if he has a tenancy or licence?
It is unlikely on welfare grounds that he would be allowed to remove water from livestock.
Also I would think that if you had rented it (not licenced it) for your use your livestock should not be "moved around".
However practically doing anything about it may be a different issue!
It is likely that whatever the law would say you would be better finding alternative grazing if it is available.
Hope we can give you some help on here.

[first time for everyone]

From what I have now been informed.

The buildings on the land belong to the person that I pay my stabling rent to.

They then have a lease of 60 years for these buildings on that property.
They then pay ground rent (i assume) to the owners of the land.

Thanks for all the constructive information so far. In the end though I think it will be a case for biting one's tongue.

[jeffrey]

Whatever thr terms of the letting are (see below), they- and the dos/don'ts- cannot be changed unilaterally.
The problem is your spectacular lack of precise terms of letting. This is why you have no idea of the applicable rules. You should never have entered into the whole transaction without proper documentation- so put your foot down now and demend a proper Letting Agreement from the rent-receiver (who seems to have a long leasehold interest, judging by your posts, and therefore might well need the freehold reversioner's Consent to Sub-let).

[Bonnie1]

The family were left in their father's Will some paddock land some 37 years ago. These fields were verbally loaned from 1981 to a neighbour for grazing horses at no charge so long as the fencing was maintained. Would this neighbour have a right to adverse possession and affect possible development in the future?

[jeffrey]

The family were left in their father's Will some paddock land some 37 years ago. These fields were verbally loaned from 1981 to a neighbour for grazing horses at no charge so long as the fencing was maintained. Would this neighbour have a right to adverse possession and affect possible development in the future?
1. The answer depends on evidence. If horse-grazer occupies land with owner's permission, there cannot be adverse possession.
2. What written confirmation exists re 'free tenancy/licence' arrangements?
3. Who are you, in this scenario- the deceased father's family or the neighbour?
4. 'Development' is irrelevant at this stage. Only the owner can develop.

[Pics]

Hi everyone I am new to this forum and wondered which section would I need to post in for land rental rights?
Thanks in advance

[jeffrey]

Hi everyone I am new to this forum and wondered which section would I need to post in for land rental rights?
Thanks in advance
That's a bit too vague!
1. Are you and the land in England & Wales?
2. Are you a landlord wanting to rent-out, or a tenant wanting to take a letting?
3. Does your question relate to let of vacant land or (if not) what else?

[Pics]

Hi, sorry about being vague, just wanted to know if I was in the right section.
We rent some land in England for our horses and have done for the past 3yrs by verbal agreement and pay monthly with a signed receipt for the money paid. No time limit on the verbal agreement. My question is.........do we have any rights? Nothing has happened but the land owner is very old and I was just worried that if the land owner dies and their family wanted the land back for their use or for sale, where would we stand?
Thanks

[jeffrey]

You have (at most) a monthly contract at common law. If you want to secure your position, arrange for a written contract [better: a deed] for the desired term. This will bind not only your aged L but also all successors in title. However, any of them could terminate it at the fixed term's end (or earlier, if you breach it) as you have no security of tenure.

[Moderator1]

Several largely similar questions on separate threads have been merged into this thread.