Acquired property subject to sitting tenant

[Beechwood]

Can anyone offer advice ? I purchased a property with a protected tenant advertised as paying an agreed rental. I bought as a long term investment and was happy with the prospect of a long term stable tenant. Maybe nievely only time will tell ?

My issue is that I wish to be a good landlord and comply with the law in return for receiving the rental payments. My trouble is that I cannot get the tenant to respond to any communication or pay any rent ? As they are not communicating with me it is difficult to determine why?

Question is, how best to approach this issue. How long do I leave it before proceeding and what action can / should I take ? At the moment I am writing to the Tenant and calling to try to establish contact and detail their position. Ideally, I just want to establish contact discuss any issues they may have and address them, provide contact info and agree a rental payment mechanism, collect any rent arrears.

Can anyone offer advice if they continue to ignore my efforts to address the above? All advice appreciated. Thanks !

[davidjohnbutton]

They will soon respond to a county court summons claiming possession for non-payment of rent! Expect though that some counter claims are likely to be made - i.e. you have not done this repair and that and so on.

You need to serve a notice to quit before taking possession proceedings - do make sure this is the correct formatted one since if you get it wrong your case will be dismissed.

[Beechwood]

David

Thank you for your rely. Although this is not my preferred course of action so that I undertake the process correctly should I not be able to get the Tenant to cooperate with me, I propose to take the following course of action:-

1) Having written and attended the property a number of times with no response, now follow up each visit with a letter sent recorded deliver detailing visit and position, i.e. rent arrears and ask them to get in touch.

2) Repeat 1) above weekly for another 8 weeks. I read that this appears to be the minimum time one must allow before commencing any legal proceedings. Correct me if I am wrong ?

3) If no response or payment after 8 weeks issue a letter indicating formal legal proceedings will be commenced, if the Tenant does not pay his arrears within 7 days of this letter. All correspondance sent recorded.

4) If still no response, initiate legal repossession proceedings. I assume this maybe best addressed through a solicitor rather than myself to avoid me making a technical error due to being a novice at these issues.

If you or anyone can advise whether the above is largely correct process and if not what else I may have to do ? If anyone can offer tips on other actions I can take to find out what may have gone wrong all appreciated.

I am still holding out hope that this is a communication hiccup but, then again, I am not holding my breath either.

Thanks for your assistance

Beechwood

[davidjohnbutton]

I answer this on the basis that the tenancy is a regulated one under the Fair Rent Act 1977 - commonly called a Rent Act or Protected tenancy.

Issue a notice to quit now - again, make sure you use the correct form. When the NTQ expires in 1 months time, you can go issue a possession summons without waiting any further. However, unlike the Assured and Assured Shorthold tenancies, possession is not guaranteed as it is where the tenant is 8 weeks in arrears on an AT or AST. Possession on rent act tenancies is subject to the judges discretion and you are likely to end up with a suspended possesion order which means so long as tenant pays £x per week, the order is suspended - if it is broken, then you can order the bailiffs in to evict.

So long as you follow the legal requirements over the notice to quit, any contact you attempt to make or letters you write are over and above the legal requirements - so yes, carry on with that line, in moderation - you dont want a counterclaim for harassment!

[Paul_f]

David. Never having had to deal directly with any Rent Act tenancies, when you issue a NTQ, in what format is it required (if any) to be worded, and is their any guidance anywhere on the wording? Thanks!

[davidjohnbutton]

This is the form required and the wording is laid down by the Rent Act 1977

http://www.oyezformslink.co.uk/forms/templates/01120.pdf

Note that printing this form will have the word specimen written across it to stop people "pinching it"!

[Beechwood]

David, Many thanks for your clear response. Yes your assumption is correct ref tenancy. The reason for the weekly visits is because currently the rent is payable weekly so I am just complying with this requirement. Hopefully I am right to do so.

As my intention is not to evict initially just get the Tenant to pay his rent and cooperate with me I will approach this issue considerately. However, if my efforts to get the Tenant to respond continue to go unanswered, I will initiate proceedings to quit occupancy. Clearly any efforts I have invested in trying to establish a good relationship will go out the window at this point therefore I see this as a last resort.

One last question if I may, that being:- I understand that a protected tenant is one that has had a tenure before 1989 in my case. However, does the person(s) have to register their protection or is it automatic ? The reason I ask is a) I have seen in the past terms in property adverts saying tenant has not registered their protected tenancy ??? which kind of indicates that there is a difference between registered and not ? Is there ? and b) through my efforts to contact my Tenant, I can find no registration yet with any of the various authorities the tenancy is registered in any way including rent, etc ?? Is this normal ?

Thanks again !!!! Hopefully my issue will resolve itself. If it does not then I will action as above.

[davidjohnbutton]

The Rent Act 1977 introduced a new form of tenancy - the 'protected tenancy'. This was a contractual tenancy in which the tenant had the right to a fair rent and security of tenure. Protected tenancies have been replaced by assured tenancies under the Housing Act 1988 and, consequently, the Rent Act will generally only apply to tenancies created before 15 January 1989. Protected tenancies already in existence continue to have protection. Once the contractual tenancy has come to an end, the tenant gains security of tenure as a statutory tenant, on basically the same terms as the prior contractual tenancy and with an absolute right to continue living in the premises indefinitely.

Your tenant would come under the above. The rent has to be registered every 2 years by the rent officer - either landlord or tenant can apply, but is is usually the landlord as it is not common for the tenant to apply for a rent increase!!! Look in your local phone book for the phone number of the local REnt Officer Service and phone them to se if the rent is registered with them within the last two years, if it isn't, then you can apply using form RR1 available from the rent officer or on their website.

[martin_n]

I have a protected tenant, so to answer your questions:

1) If they have lived there since or before 1989 (I can't remember the exact date) then they are automatically a Rent Act tenant.

2) When people mention about "registered" term with Rent Act tenant, then it means that the rent is registered. When the rent is registered then you can only revise the rates every two years with formal forms, unless there are subtantial enhancements to the property then it can be applied before two years term.

There is a very good document about Rent Act tenant and I suggest you to get a copy and read for yourself to understand these things, you may be able to find this document from your local council web site or the goverment site (someone did put a link in this forum before, do a search).

[skelly@runningdog3.fsnet.]

I have recently inherited a property which has tennancy subject to THe Rent Act 1977. I don't really want the hassle of managing the property but it has prooved very difficult to sell with the current tennants what are the chances of getting tennants out

[jurdy1]

Suggest you check the threads but in essence very difficult. Look at the ODPM website to familiarise yourself with what rights these tenants enjoy.

Before you do anything take professional advice from a good (and I mean good solicitor who's well versed in property law)as it can be a minefield. The only ways usually to get them out is either they accept a pay off from you to surrender their tenancy or you get the courts to agree to move them to another premises that you will have to guarantee to purchase unless of course the courts find that one of the mandatory cases applies to your situation.

Is the rent registered and when was it last put up for an increase?

[P.Pilcher]

(a) Unless the tenants are well behind with their rent, you cannot get them out and when they die the tenancy can be inherited.
(b) We have recently learned on this forum that if you wish to sell the property it must first be offered to the current tenants -the penalties for not doing so can be severe.
(c) The existence of such tenants reduces the market value of the property by about 50%
(d) A search on "regulated tenancies" or "regulated tenants" should bring up a load of useful, current information on the matter.

P.P.

[davidjohnbutton]

For a privately owned Rent Act tenancy there is NO legal obligation on the landlord to offer the property to the tenant first if the property is offered for sale. Whoever posted that is completely misinformed.

Most landlords trying to sell Rent Act property do offer it to the tenant first as a courtesy, usually though at market price knowing that the value drops by about 50% with a sitting rent act tenant in it.

[Jennifer_M]

Maybe you could offer the tenants to buy the property at say 80-90% of the market value.

If they want to buy it it will save you the hassle (unles syou wanted to keep the property of course) and you won't have to sell it at 50% of its value.

[lucid]

Re. 1st refusal rules:

You should download and read the leaflet. Regulated tenants are considered qualifying tenants under the rules but it depends on other factors concerning the property also.

[Rockymountains]

Hi Guys!

I'm new here and need your help please. My Son's have just inherited a 3 Bed purpose built flat from their deceased Father. There are 2 tenants. One of which has been in residence for 6 years.

The flat is set up as a bedsit with each tenant renting thier own room. Rent is payable on a weekly basis from each but there is no formal agreement. How do I stand with the tenant which has been there for 6 years? Is she a sitting tenant? :confused:

[zoe]

What do you think the term sitting tenant means ?

Why are you concerned about the tenant that has been there for 6 years ?

It sounds like they probably have a standard periodic AST so you should do some research in this area.

Zoe

[Rockymountains]

Thank you for the reply but can a standard AST be given for this long term tenant to sign and what happens if she refuses?

[zoe]

There is no need to worry about the length of this tenants stay. Currently they will be on a periodic AST.

Why do you want them to sign a new AST ?

Do some research on a periodic AST and then ask yourself why you would want to change this ?

[Editor]

Any tenant in residence is a sitting tenant. So a landlord may purchases an investment (buy-to-let) property with a tenant in residence - sitting tenant.
However, what most people refer to as sitting tenants are long-term tenants who come under statutory protection - ie they have security of tenure for life if they stay put.
These "Rent Act" tenants will have a tenancy dating back to pre 15 January 1989.
There was another period of time up to 28 February 1997 when tenancies could default to a Rent Act tenancy (or something similar - Assured Tenancy) if the relevant paerwork was not in order.
After this time the default tenancy is the AST.
Therefore your tenant is without doubt a periodic AST tenant and you can serve a section 21 notice if you want possession.
See the article on sitting tenants which originally appeared in Property Week:
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/blog/?cat=3

[investor68]

I literally am going out of my mind. Have been trying to buy a flat for the last 3 months. Solicitor has been a complete nightmare, she doesn't act on instructions, return calls etc., etc., etc. Have made complaints but they fall on deaf ears. I'm thinking about going to the Law Society to complain. (everything on the purchase is completely straightforward and I've had my mortgage offer for about 3 months too).

Am buying with tenant in place. Tenant wants to stay on, I want him to stay on, so there's no problem there. He is on an AST at the moment which expires around the end of October. Because of all the messing around the seller has served s21 notice to expire on 29 Oct.

What I would like to do is exchange and complete asap with tenant there. So I won't be getting vacant possession of the flat.

Then I'd like to put a new AST in place with a new rent - the tenant has already emailed to agree to this - it's only a small increase.

I'm completely baffled about what I need to be doing and solicitor I think is out of her depth and doesn't want to advise me on buying with the tenant in place and says I should buy with vacant possession. So far she's said the fact that there will be a "statutory periodic tenancy" (under the terms of the AST) is a problem for me. She hasn't explained why. I'm new to this and not getting any helpful advice from her. (by the way the mortgage is buy to let and I've personally checked with the lender and sent them a copy of the current AST and they've said they are happy).

Pls can someone help with the logistics of what I need to do and when re the following?

1. I guess the sale contract should say I am buying with the tenant and refer to the AST? What sort of thing should it say about the rent and deposit already paid to the seller/landlord?

2. Do I need a separate document signed by the seller passing the benefit of the AST to me - or can/shd this be done in the sale contract?

3. Assuming (please GOD?!?) I complete before the time the s.21 notice expires, am I free to put in place the new agreement immediately after completion, do I have to wait for the current AST to actually expire first? (Then I'd be worried about him being in the property but under no agreement?) When could/should I put it in place? Is there any problem with issuing the new agreement whilst the tenant is already in the property under the current AST?

4. Are there any notices i need to give before giving the new tenancy agreement? I read on one of the forums about the need to give notice of a rent increase - the tenant and I have just agreed this in informal email exchanges is that good enough?

5. Could I ask the tenant (if he was happy to do so) to sign the new AST agreement in readiness with the date of its commencement just to be inserted once I have completed the purchase or would this be illegal? I just don't know how it should all work logistically - am worried about getting it wrong.

6. The current AST was with a letting agent but I'd like to draft one myself, using that AST as a base or possibly a free one from one of the websites. Will this be okay or am I tied to the agent? Also what should happen with the deposit which is now held by the letting agent?

I'm sorry to go on and on but my mind is doing overtime, worrying about everything and feeling completely out of my depth with a solicitor who just won't give me the advice I need.

If anyone can offer some step by step advice on what to do I would be really grateful.

Thanks in advance.
Regards

[P.Pilcher]

Oh dear - and it is all so simple IMHO. The legal executive responsible for conveyancing at my solicitors would have this sorted in seconds!

First, I suggest you tell the tenant the situation and unofficially tell him/her to ignore the S21 notice (provided you DO purchase the property). Second INSTRUCT your solicitor to accept from the vendor a contract of sale modified to remove the granting of vacant possession in view of the occupancy of a tenant holding an assured shorthold tenancy agreement which may have lapsed into a statutory periodic tenancy. It may also be advisable for the contract to state the date on which the validity of the fixed term of the AST agreement ends. Although it is unethical to do so, if you can contact the vendor's solicitor and advise them that such a contract would be acceptable may speed things up here.

This is all you really need to do until the sale is completed. Naturally you will require from the vendors a copy of the AST to ensure that the dates of validity are as claimed and that the tenant is not a regulated or assured one (been in residence since before 1998). On completion, the completion statement will make allowance for the tenant's deposit and rent paid in advance/arrear. This is to enable you to refund the tenant's deposit when he/she finally leaves.
Once the sale is completed, you are now the landlord and can negociate new AST agreements and rent changes with who is now your tenant as required.Do remember that the original AST remains in force until the end of its fixed term unless the tenant is prepared to sign your new one.

P.P.

[investor68]

Dear P Pilcher

Many thanks for your helpful advice. I wish you were my solicitor!!

Please could I ask you one more "logistical question"? The lease says that consent to letting is needed. I've been asking my solicitor about this for what seems like a lifetime - never getting any reply on it. Now I've asked the seller if he can let me have this.

My question is, assuming there is consent in place for the current letting, does this cover me for the new letting or will I have to apply again?

It only worries me slightly that if I apply after I have completed and putin place the new AST is there any way the freeholder could DENY consent - as then I would be in big trouble.

Many thanks again for your help.

Regards

[investor68]

Hi Wickerman,

Many thanks. Yes, it is leasehold and it is the freeholder who requires consent to letting. I have read the lease and it says something along the lines that the freeholder can charge a "reasonable" fee each time any form of consent under the lease is needed.

This worries me because I've just found out they require £177 fees for me to enter into a deed of covenant with the management company and a further £150 for giving notice of transfer and charge when I have completed. I'm sure that their fee for consent will not be at all "reasonable". On a separate note here - does anyone know if there's any legal restriction on what freeholders can charge for these sorts of things - what is "reasonable"?

I suppose in a way I'm resigned to having to pay whatever they ask but the thing that concerns me more is the timing of my application for the consent to letting - at the moment I can't apply as I'm not the owner. But as I will be buying with the existing tenant already in place, when I become owner I will technically be in breach of the requirement to obtain consent prior to letting. My major worry is could they actually refuse permission to let as by that time I would have actually bought and be bound by the terms of the existing tenancy ageement so there would be nothing I could do to "undo" the tenancy. So, should I be insisting on having consent in principle in place before I exchange and complete?

I know I'm an old worrymonger but as my solicitor is being absolutely no help I am having to do all the thinking and worrying myself!

Thanks again,

Regards,

[P.Pilcher]

O.K. so we know now that you are not buying a property, merely the lease to one. With regards to your understandable concerns, I would have expected your solicitor to write to the lessor on your behalf, stating that his client was negociating the purchase of the lease, that the property already contained a tenant on an AST which would not expire until after the lease had been purchased, and enquire of the position of the potential purchaser with regard to clause xyz of the lease. If you have got the address of the lessors, you could do this yourself. This is of course not ethical unless you tell your solicitor what you intend to do if she is incapable. In the unlikely event of the lessor refusing permission to sublet - expecially if you have paid them a fee for the required permission, then they are being unreasonable. They will have extreme difficulty in getting a court to award the lease back to them, but you will, in that case, need a decent solicitor to act for you.
I don't know whether Paul F, DJB or Lawstudent could comment further on this one.

P.P.

[investor68]

Hi P Pilcher,

Thanks again for your helpful reply. As you say, that is what I would have expected my solicitor to do too - or at least to have done something. So far she has sent me the contract asking me to sign it if I want to exchange. there has been no report/advice at all on the property - all she has done is to send me copies of the papers relating to the flat.

The first contract sent was wrong as it said I was buying with "vacant possession" so I had to ask her to change that. It just seems that I am raising some of the things that might be a problem - consent to letting would be a major one for me - and she is doing nothing, giving no advice, but just asking if I want to exchange to sign the contract!!

Am tearing my hair out here!

I think I'll do as you suggest and tell her I'm going to write directly to the freeholder.

Regards

[lawstudent]

Before exchange of contracts I would get your solicitor to ask the seller the date on which the tenant first moved into the property - and provide a copy of his first agreement. It may not be good enough just to have seen a copy of a recent AST agreement.

If the tenant has been there for a while he may have acquired rights which render a subsequent AST invalid. For example, his first AST may have been entered into without the requisite Notice, in which case he may actually NOT be shorthold at all (even though his current agreement purports to be so). And if his tenancy predates 1988 he could be a protected Rent Act tenant.

Your solicitor is right to be cautious, although she does sound pretty useless.

[investor68]

Hi LawStudent,

Thanks for your helpful reply.

My solicitor hasn't done anything. But I spotted recently that the inventory the vendor supplied predates the current tenancy agreement by a year so you are right that there was a tenancy prior to this one and so I've asked the vendor directly to send me a copy of that and to confirm that the tenant had no other tenancies before this.

May I ask what is the "requisite Notice" to which you refer as you've got me worried now!!

I am told that this tenant has definitely only been in the property since April 2005. I am told the first agreement was an assured shortold and then there was a new assured shorthold in April this year, expiring October this year. There was two month notice (I think s.21 (?) the one asking for possession) served to expire at the end of October and then my plan is for the tenant to sign a new one.

Thanks again for your help.

Regards,

[lawstudent]

May I ask what is the "requisite Notice" to which you refer as you've got me worried now!! I am told that this tenant has definitely only been in the property since April 2005.
For tenancies that started before 28 February 1997 it was necessary to serve a Section 20 Notice of an assured shorthold tenancy before the tenancy was entered into. If the tenant has only been there since April 2005 this does not affect you ... but make sure you have the tenant's original start date confirmed in writing before you exchange contracts.

[karenn1957]

Hi, I am new to the forum and am looking forward to participating.
My partner died last year and left a property to myself and our daughter..the property has had the same tennant in it for the last 10 years for a very moderate rent..Since his death she has signed a new agreement (a basic agreement that i typed out myself) stating among other things that she understands the landlords name has changed etc. i have spent quite a lot of money on the property getting it up to scratch and have slighty increased the rent but i know i could get a further hundred a month if i was to relet it.
My main question is do i need to get a legally binding agreement signed between us and the tennant? or will the agreement she has signed be adequate. Secondley when my partner died and we took over as landlords does the tennancy continue or should it be classed as a new tennancy

Thanks for any input.

[jimk2]

You really need to get an assured short hold tennancy agreement in place. This will protect you and the tennant rather than getting them to sign a few things written by yourself.

Once you have an assured short hold tennancy agreement in place this will have your name documented as the landlord.

[TaxationPete]

On another angle, you say it was left to you and your daughter, how old is your daughter, assumining she is 18 plus then she will have to declare have the rental income profit and pay the appropriate Income Tax at her marginal rate. Regards Peter

[P.Pilcher]

It could well be worse than that: If this tenant has been in place for ten years then the tenancy started in 1997, before the amendment to the 1988 housing act. Thus, unles a correctly served section 20 form is in place, said tenant has an assured tenancy. This means that, provided they pay their rent, they have a tenancy for life, but fortunately for you they are expected to pay market rent. If you wish to increase their rent, you must do so under section 13 of the HA where, if the tenasnt objects, they can appeal to a tribunal who will examine the case and fix the rent at what is the going rate for similar properties in the same area.

P.P.

[kellymorris]

Hi
I was wondering if anyone out there could help me, i bought a house in September and i was aware there was a sitting tenant in the property at the time. The guy i bought the house off didn't have any kind of tenancy agreement with her and it was on a verbal trust basis. He bought the property in the early 90's or late 80's and as far as i can tell. The tenant lived there with her husband who has since died and the previous owner allowed her to stay on in the proprty.

I don't have any tenancy agreement with the tenant, in the same street rent for property is renting for over £500 and as my tenant is a long sitting one only pays £52 Per week. I would like to move into the property myself as my personal circumstances have changed but i was wondering if it was possible to ask the tenant to leave given them a notice period as long as i possible can. I believe the tenant has other people staying there but can not prove this.

Can anyone help me out??

[jeffrey]

1. When did tenancy begin? T's status may depend on its commencement date.
2. Rent is being paid, so there IS a tenancy (oral, not written).
3. As L, you may be able to take steps to end it. If it is an AST, this would be by Notice under s.21(4)(a) of 1988 Act.

[kellymorris]

The tenant is old and has lived there for about 60 year from what i can gather, her son was born there and i know he is in his 60's, i don't want to be seen as turffing out older people but needs must.

She pays rent on time although a fraction of what can be obtained. As you can imagine this doesn't cover the mortgage on the proptery and therefore would rather i moved in myself to cover the extra costs.

[jeffrey]

A sitting tenant is simply one whose tenancy continues from before a change of property ownership through to after the change.
It therefore leaves undetermined the issue of whether T holds tenancy governed by:
a. Rent Act 1977;
b. ditto subject to new rules in Housing Act 1980;
c. Housing Act 1988;
d. ditto subject to amendments by Housing Act 1996;
e. common-law contract; or
f. something else;
or not a tenancy at all.

[Grange]

Jeffrey states the law.

However, probably the likeliest answer is that you have no way whatsoever of evicting her legally (nor her son) until they are both dead. What did your solicitor say when you bought this place? I hope you didn't pay more than about 40% of the market value of it. Did you wonder why it was cheap?

Is there a fair rent registered on this property? (You can find out by calling your local rent service.) If not, get one registered - but get the place as smart as you can (if T'll let you) before you do.

[kellymorris]

Thanks

To be honest the proprty was gifted to me so it's not costing me anything so i suppose that's one thing. I did wonder if i would have to wait til they died, My solictor didn't really say much only that i might have problems if i wanted to but when i took the property over i didn't need to live it in. Circumstances have changed but there is a portion of land with it big enough to build so i may raise money of that to build in the garden i could maybe get by like that.....Surely the tenant doesn't have any rights over that as well!

[bill65]

Thanks

To be honest the proprty was gifted to me so it's not costing me anything so i suppose that's one thing. I did wonder if i would have to wait til they died, My solictor didn't really say much only that i might have problems if i wanted to but when i took the property over i didn't need to live it in. Circumstances have changed but there is a portion of land with it big enough to build so i may raise money of that to build in the garden i could maybe get by like that.....Surely the tenant doesn't have any rights over that as well!

Yes they do. They have what is known as exclusive possession.

Street v Mountford [1985 AC 809:

Lord Templeman: "The hallmark of exclusive possession is entirely consistent with the elevation of a tenancy into an estate in land" (at 814)

.....Accordingly the tenant is entitled to exercise the right of an owner of land, which is in the real sense his land albeit temporarily and subject to certain restrictions' (at 816)

[rinomanfroni]

At this point, I would sell the property and buy another one for the same price. If you need to live in the property and you cannot force the tenant to leave it, the only thing you can do is place it on the market, and buy a new home with the money that you get for the property. I believe you also have your right to live somewhere which is not on the walkway beside the street though...

[Grange]

First off you need to establish the nature of their tenancy, as Jeffrey said. Assuming it to be the Rent Act 1977:

The one bonus is that you inherited the property. You therefore acquired it otherwise than by way of purchase.

You may thus be able to go to court to claim possession on the discretionary grounds that you wish to live in it... provided eviction doesn't cause more hardship to the current occupier than your homelessness causes you. You would also probably have to pay T a lump sum.

Another possibility is to buy them out. Let's say open market value for property with vacant possession is £200k. With sitting tenant you would get 100k. Sitting tenant therefore costs you £100k. You may be able to agree an amount that you can pay sitting tenant in order to get rid of them. A 50:50 split is a possibility; you may manage to negotiate a better deal - offer them £25k to leave? Cheap rent may be the only thing keeping them there.

They might let you build on the garden in exchange for a lump sum (effectively you have to 'buy' the garden from them - or at least buy out their rights to the garden; sorry).

First off, investigate why they pay the rent they do. See if there is a fair rent registered, and apply for a new one (but see what you can do to tidy the place up first so they'll arrange a better fair rent).

Be aware that a fair rent can only be revised up every two years; that it is limited in the amount it can rise on each revision; that it is unlikely to be even so much as 75% of the market rent. (A landlord does not view a 'fair' rent as being fair.)

Otherwise, you can hope that an incoming future government repeals the Rent Act. You can hope they die quickly.

[magnaman]

This is clearly a tenancy under the rent Act 1977 and the son will have successive rights to the original tenancy but when it passes to him, it will become an Assured Tenancy. This must not be confused with an Assured Shorthold Tenancy. He will have security of tenure until his death but write to him giving notice that the rent will be increasing to a market rent and state the rate in the notice. In the meantime, contact the Rent Service, www.therentservice.gov.uk/ and ask them to register the rent anyway. You will get increments every two years by reapplying

The other commentators are right in saying that if you can improve the property with double glazing, new kitchen/bathroom, gas central heating etc, this will improve the amount of rent the rent officer will set. However, you will need the tenants cooperation!

Alternatively, have you considered selling it? We buy exactly this type of property. We can offer a free, no obligation appraisal with your legal fees paid and a sale within 21 days- depending on the age of the tenant, we will pay up to 70% of vacant possession value. Please feel free to call on 0845 257 0170 and speak to Simon Marks - will be very happy to assist you or answer any further qustions, regardlesse.

[kellymorris]

Many Thanks for all the advice that's being given i really do appraicte it but i don't really want to sell the house as it was seen as a future for myself, clearly this isn't going to be the case, as the house has had new windows roof and gates and a new bathroom goes in next week - when the windows and roof were done a shocking £4 per fornight increase was given..... i'll have to get on the good side of the tenant and hope she will give up her stake in the garden and then i can build on that ensuring i leave a portion to her still to use!

[Grange]

The fair rent is £52, and the market rent £500? I am surprised at the extent of the differential. Often fair rents are not 'calculated' by the Rent officer. Partly because there are not many fair rents around these days, so experience is lacking in setting them - there are few comparables. A Rent Officer is likely to take last time's fair rent and add inflation. Over a 20-30 year period that makes a big difference.

You should appeal the fair rent. Something like 90% of appealed fair rents end up rising in the landlord's favour. You should make sure you are properly represented.

You need to ensure that your improvements increase the rent by over 15%... and therefore rent capping doesn't apply. Have a read of http://www.cem.ac.uk/research/files/fairexec.pdf It appears your tenant isn't resistant to improvements - again, take professional advice. Pricing them out is possibly your best option.

http://www.stayingput.co.uk/haskc/Fair+Rents/ gives you a good guide to calculation of fair rents.

Another option is to see if they would prefer to move somewhere smaller - fewer stairs; central heating etc. etc. You could then buy them a 2 bed flat (brand new, shiny, knock-down price in auction) and they could transfer their tenancy to there. They benefit from lower rents (smaller place), and you benefit from the larger house they used to occupy.

And have a word with Magnaman and some others like him and see what they will offer you. They can often give you a good price as they have techniques for evicting tenants; or moving them on - concentrating sitters from several properties in just one devalued property - thereby ending with an overall profit. You may find that this is the last thing your tenants want - if you undertake not to sell the place to somebody else with them in situ, they may accept imposition of a higher rent than the rent officer offered.

Much depends on your relationship with them.

[Grange]

And of course the other bit of good news is that your tenant is pretty ancient - her son is 60 so that makes her presumably 80 at least. You would be jolly unlucky if she is still there in 15 years' time, and her son will have to pay a market rent.

[jeffrey]

The fair rent is £52, and the market rent £500? I am surprised at the extent of the differential.
I bet that it's:
a. £52 per week; as against
b. £500 per calendar month.

[Grange]

Somebody comparing apples and pears then... But equally she claimed to have bought it in her first post, but now she was given it. She also claimed complete ignorance, but now appears to have had the rent officer in.

Even so, I'm surprised at the difference as the fair rent is only 45% of the market. (Assuming that you could actually get the market rent... we all know how over-ambitious estate agents can be.) Even Dolphin Square in Westminster, which is some of the smartest social housing around has fair rents of 70% of market.

[magnaman]

Have an idea - would be very happy to negotiate with the tenant on your behalf. With over 20 years experience in dealing with tenants, feel sure we could help you secure the plot We will even deal with the planning application and pay all the legal fees....0845 257 0170

[kellymorris]

The person i was gifted the property off had already had the rent people in and i have to wait a while before i can get them back in. You are right i am completey ingnorant when it comes to this that is why i thought i would gain some valuable exprerince from here as to what options i have.

[Grange]

Aha. That's bad luck, so you're out of time to appeal the fair rent.

Wait until it next comes up for review, bring the place into the 21st century and get that crucial 15% rent increase... which will turn into a 100% rent increase. But get advice from a decent firm of surveyors first.

Eventually you will get your property back - when she dies; if you're lucky you might get rid of them beforehand if you can price them out or negotiate a cash settlement with them (cheaper than buying a new house).

[Uncle Monty]

Along with my two siblings and two cousins, I'm about to inherit a (very small) Cotswold estate comprising a large vacant main house, with a tenanted two-bedroom cottage in the grounds. None of us can realistically afford to buy the others out, so we're looking to maximise the estate's value and sell.

The tenant (a single man in his early 50s) has been in situ for over 25 years, with a council-registered "fair rent". He's a nice bloke, and has never been in arrears. Nonetheless, his presence is clearly a blight on the estate's value, whether we opt to sell it as a whole, or divided into two, with the cottage and part of the garden as a separate lot.

As his tenancy falls under the 1977 Rent Act, it seems there's very little legal scope for persuading him to leave. I'm doubtful either if the registered rent, even if we appeal it, could ever be raised to a level that might encourage him to move on: the cottage is at present very spartan, for instance lacking any form of central heating. Nonetheless nearby rental properties with considerably better facilities are on the market for only around 25% more - I gather from searching the threads here that we'd therefore be unlikely to get the registered rent much higher on appeal, even if we were to update it.

Three main issues:

(i) Are we obliged to offer him "first refusal" in the event of a sale? And if so, how would any related valuation be negotiated and "enforced"? I assume a valuation of the cottage would be based on its current status with a sitting tenant - the three agents we've consulted have valued it at around £200-250K with a sitting tenant, and £400-450K with vacant possession.

(ii) I understand (from this very helpful forum) that "discretionary termination" of a registered tenancy is sometimes possible with an inherited property, if one of those who inherits it wishes to move in. Is this a feasible option worth pursuing?

(iii) Assuming that (ii) is a long shot, is there any "rule of thumb" in calculating the lump sum he might reasonably expect us to pay him to vacate? The (surprisingly high) valuation of the cottage is in large part a factor of its location, and the grounds in which it is set. Two-bedroom houses in one of the surrounding small towns start at around £150K. Might buying one and offering it to him at the same rent and tenancy conditions be an option?

[jeffrey]

Issue (i)
No. He is a true sitting tenant but he has no right of pre-emption.

[Uncle Monty]

Issue (i)
No. He is a true sitting tenant but he has no right of pre-emption.
Many thanks - that's something, anyway. I was rather confused by some clause of the 1987 Landlord & Tenant Act (?) covering houses divided into flats, and the legal obligation to offer first refusal to such tenants in case of a sale.

[jeffrey]

Many thanks - that's something, anyway. I was rather confused by some clause of the 1987 Landlord & Tenant Act (?) covering houses divided into flats, and the legal obligation to offer first refusal to such tenants in case of a sale.
But isn't this a self-contained free-standing freehold cottage? 1987 Act does not apply.

[Uncle Monty]

But isn't this a self-contained free-standing freehold cottage? 1987 Act does not apply.
Indeed - in confirming the Act does not apply, you have laid that particular doubt to rest...

[P.Pilcher]

A general rule of thumb is that properties containing such tenants sell for approximately half their market value with vacant possession. I was, however interested to note that at an auction last November the hammer prices of two such properties in the Midlands sold for what was approximately their full market price!
Keep your fingers crossed!

P.P.

[Uncle Monty]

A general rule of thumb is that properties containing such tenants sell for approximately half their market value with vacant possession. I was, however interested to note that at an auction last November the hammer prices of two such properties in the Midlands sold for what was approximately their full market price!
Keep your fingers crossed!

P.P.

Thanks for that - very interesting, and fingers duly crossed.

We did wonder about an auction. Properties like this seem rare in the Cotswolds, and some agents have suggested that the appeal of an "estate" might attract bids over the market value. Money-no-object City-type high rollers might not be at all fussed by the prospect of shelling out an extra 100K or so to pay off a sitting tenant. You just need two determined millionaires to bid against each other...

[jeffrey]

Generally, tenanted properties sell for:
a. full (or virtually full) market value if T holds under 1988 Act; but
b. much-reduced value if T holds under 1977 Act.

[Uncle Monty]

Re paying him to vacate, how is negotiation handled? Is the ball completely in his court here? Can he simply refuse any offer we make?

[Bel]

Re paying him to vacate, how is negotiation handled? Is the ball completely in his court here? Can he simply refuse any offer we make?

He is free to decline or accept.

Put yourself in his position.

What would you want to mitigate the loss of ammenity, a low rent and the home that you love so dearly?? Enough money to buy your own small house, all be it in less endearing surroundings ? Or an even nicer rented house on low rent and with security of tenure somewhere else?

Go on a fact find; face to face. Explain your position and ask if there is any way possibly you can negotiate. No pressure. Give tenant utmost respect that the place is his home and you understand how attatched he must be.

[cspicer1]

Ok here is the situation.

My grandmother had a house she rented out and she has now passed away.

The tenant of the house says there was no lease.

We (the esate) can not find any lease.

He says he has been in ocupation for 19 years (since 1989)

We now want to sell the house.

Is the tenant a sitting tenant with security of tenure?

Is it for us (the estate) to prove when he moved in or for the tenant.

He only pays approx £200 a month, the going rent in the area is £400 per month, can his rent be increased?

Any help, guidance much appreciated.

Charlie

[jeffrey]

Commencement date wil be critical. Did T take-up tenancy before 15 Jan 1989?

If yes, Rent Act 1977 will probably apply and T is then an almost-irremovable sitting tenant.

If no, T is probably a Standard Assured Shorthold Tenant (unless a Notice, under s.20 of Housing Act 1988, was served before the tenancy started). This is nearly as bad as Rent Act status.

Either way, it's probably bad news. Sorry. However, both Acts do allow rent increase procedures (differing in forms and technical details).

[cspicer1]

Thanks for the reply.

This is the problem at this stage, we can not prove when the T moved in.

Would a s.20 notice be registered any where?

Are there any ways of evicting the tenant or putting him on an AST ?

Does the Security of Tenure pass to anyone else on his death?

[Poppy]

Are there any ways of evicting the tenant or putting him on an AST ?

Can only evict if there are rent arrears. You cannot change the type of tenancy.

Concentrate on finding evidence of moving in date and applying the correct legal procedure to increase rent.

Do you want to consider incentivising this person to move out?

[cspicer1]

Thanks..

Does this change the situation?

My grandmother had the house in her name and had all post send there. She claimed it as her primary residence and didnt delcare she had anyone living there. She as I am aware never lived there. All rent was paid in cash with no recipet.

Rent has only been paid offfically to the solictor of the estate for the last four years.

Grandmother would have paid all the bills as well. T may have paid TV licence when first move in..

[Poppy]

Sorry? Change what?

[cspicer1]

that offically the T has only been paying rent for the last 4 years. Could we suggest therefore unless he can prove otherwise he has only been in ocupation for the last 4 years? presumbley on an assummed AST? and we could serve him a notice to quit?

[SALL]

I suppose you can try, Thats might make the tenant produce some proof of start date and that would help you increase the rent in any case.

PS - Thats just my opinion.

[cspicer1]

Thanks

Any suggestions on how to prove date of occupation?

Grandmother used to pay all / most bills

[jeffrey]

Thanks

Any suggestions on how to prove date of occupation?

Grandmother used to pay all / most bills

What about telephone bill?

[cspicer1]

what if any are the ways to evict an assurred tenant?

[jeffrey]

what if any are the ways to evict an assurred tenant?

If you mean SAT- only s.8 grounds, if any apply.

[jeffrey]

We can not prove when the T moved in.

Would a s.20 notice be registered anywhere?

No. L would serve two copies on T: one to keep and the other to countersign/return. Onus of proof of service is on L.

[jeffrey]

Does the Security of Tenure pass to anyone else on his death?
That depends on:
a. which Act governs the tenancy; and
b. who of T's family/associates was residing there with him.

[Bel]

that offically the T has only been paying rent for the last 4 years. Could we suggest therefore unless he can prove otherwise he has only been in ocupation for the last 4 years? presumbley on an assummed AST? and we could serve him a notice to quit?

I think if you know the T has been paying rent, even if it was under the table, do not try to think or say that he hasn't (its dishonest), just to help your case. What you are suggesting doesn't sound plausable so dont waste your time on trying this.

Have you looked at the electoral role?

I would go to a specialist solicitor for advice. If not, I would act as if its an assured tenancy and raise the rent to market level in the correct way and then see how the tenant responds.

Or you can sell with T in situ, at a discount.

[carollaister]

I have recently inheritated a house which has a sitting tenant in it.

the tenant was born in the house and the tenancy was passed on from parents to the son.

he has been a tenant for 60 years and the house is as it was 60 years ago.

over the years the previous landlord tried to modernise the house but the tenant would never allow access to do these moderations as such there is no bathroom in the house only an outside toilet.

does anyone know where i stand on either modernising the house whilst the tenant is in it or asking him to leave? from observations the tenant doesnt seem to actually live there but he continues to pay his rent on time every month.

if someone could advise or point me in the right direction it would be greatly appreciated

[P.Pilcher]

It would appear that this tenant is an assured one and provided he pays his rent, there is little that you can do. If he is no longer living there and putting up with the housing conditions which prevailed 60 years ago, one wonders why he still insists on paying his rent. I would suggest that the only thing that you can do is to raise this if you can with reference to a rent tribunal and this increase may start to make him question the benefit of maintaining the tenancy that he does not use.

P.P.

[Preston]

It would appear that this tenant is an assured one

P.P.

Hi

If the tenant succeeded to the tenancy from his parents before 15th January 1989, the tenancy won't be assured, but rather will be old fashioned regulated tenancy under the Rent Act 1977. Or rather, that is what it will be provided he occupies the premises as his residence. If he does not, he will simply be an ordinary contractual tenant.

The difference is crucial. No grounds are required to obtain possession against an ordinary contractual tenant, whereas a regulated tenant can only be evicted if one of the grounds in the Rent Act applies.

So, my suggestion is that Carol might want to give a bit more detail on:

a) exactly when and how the succession took place
b) the terms of the tenancy agreement and
c) what evidence is there that the tenant is, or is not, in occupation.

Preston

[carollaister]

Hi Preston

Thank you for responding in response to the below queries you mentioned:-
a) exactly when and how the succession took place = 1965 (when parents died)
b) the terms of the tenancy agreement and = no agreement is in place just that the tenancy passed onto the son from the parents there is no paperwork to refer to
c) what evidence is there that the tenant is, or is not, in occupation = from investigation taken over a months basis the tenant has not been back to the property and his sister sends his rent like clockwork on the 1st of every month

sorry to be vague but i have no other information to go on!
if you could be of any further help it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

[Preston]

Hi Preston

Thank you for responding in response to the below queries you mentioned:-
a) exactly when and how the succession took place = 1965 (when parents died)
b) the terms of the tenancy agreement and = no agreement is in place just that the tenancy passed onto the son from the parents there is no paperwork to refer to
c) what evidence is there that the tenant is, or is not, in occupation = from investigation taken over a months basis the tenant has not been back to the property and his sister sends his rent like clockwork on the 1st of every month

sorry to be vague but i have no other information to go on!
if you could be of any further help it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Hi

Well, assuming there is no dispute that the succession took place in 1965 he is a regulated tenant provided he was in occupation at that time and is now. Technically he will be a statutory regulated tenant, as opposed to a protected one. There is a very good government leaflet on the subject - just google regulated tenant leaflet and it will pop up.

As you say, the information on occupation is a little vague. Of itself, being away for a month is not conclusive. The sort of evidence a court would look for is what property does he regard as his home; where does his mail go; how often is he there; where are his belongings; etc. Common sense sort of things really.

As a starting point, you could always ask him? If he gives the answer you want, then fine. If not, you can start to consider what further evidence you might need to prove the matter one way or another.

Good luck

Preston

[jo_mo31]

Please can anyone help?

My partner and his brother inherited a house from their Grandfather with sitting tenants.
There was no tenancy agreement ever found in their Grandfathers possessions and they have written to the tenants asking for a copy of any agreement made, and they have ignored the request.
The tenants moved in some time after 15th Jan 1989 and before 28th Feb 1997, so we believe that this is an Assured Tenancy.
The tenants pay a very low rent for the property / area, however have not asked for any repairs etc to the property in over 1 year. We believe the property is in a fairly bad state of repair due to the valuation for the estate / view from outside the property.
The tenants have paid their rent monthly, since the tenancy was taken over.
Does anyone know, what the chances are of
a) gaining posession of the property or
b) putting the rent up to a reasonable rate for the area / current market?

And what would be the next steps?

Thanks

[jeffrey]

1. Did your partner/brother (X and Y) serve on T (after death of Deceased):
a. Letter of Authority, from Deceased's personal representatives in favour of X and Y;
b. Notice under s.3 of LTA 1985; and
c. Notice under s.48 of LTA 1987?

2. If not, X/Y should do that right now. Otherwise, T is not obliged to recognise X/Y as successors to L.

3. Even if it is an Assured Tenancy [= governed by Housing Act 1988], it could be either an SAT or an AST. Did the Deceased serve a s.20 Notice before the letting started? If he did and X/Y can prove that, it's an AST; otherwise, it's an SAT and X/Y are lumbered with T unless there are any applicable grounds for possession by serving a s.8 Notice (see Schedule 2 to Act).

4. To increase the rent, in the absence of any written Letting Agreement, and assuming that T now has a Statutory Periodic Tenancy (whether it's an AST or an SAT), X/Y can use the s.13 procedure. There are many LZ threads about it.

[jo_mo31]

Many Thanks for your quick response.

Well the answer is yes to your questions. 1, a), b) and c) These were done via the solicitor when the estate was being dealt with.

There is no evidence that the deceased served a section 20 notice on the tenants, although this doesn't mean it didn't happen.
We have no evidence of it and neither do the solicitors dealing with the estate.
We do not think that there are any likely grounds for possesion under s.8, so it looks like we will have to try to increase the rent.
If we attempt to increase the rent, then a tenancy agreement may come out of the woodwork, as we believe they have one. (We orginally thought they had a Regulated Tenancy and got the Councils Rent Officer involved, he told us that they moved in after 1989 and that he saw a document to prove it)

Are we also right in thinking that the tenants can pass on the rights to live in the property to a spouse / and children? They are an elderly couple so this may be relevant.

Thanks for your help

[jeffrey]

Even if there is a Tenancy Agreement that now re-appears, it wil presumably be an SAT and its fixed term wil have expired long ago.

No, there are no succession rights in that case.

[Bel]

A market rent seems to be your only weapon. But do you really want them out. Its their home...no wonder they feel defensive.

I would also ask to inspect the premesis for disrepair; you wouldn't want them to sue you for negligence if the condition of property caused an accident.

If you put up the rent, they may claim disrepair and start making demands.

[zeemax_mini]

Hey there,

I'm looking at buying a house which has an assured tenant (not assured shorthold), and though I'd be happy buying it if he was paying the rent he should be, it looks that he's well behind. The current owner has today served the tenant with the notice that he's going to take legal action over the rent arrears, so I'd like some advice!

1. If i make an offer and it gets accepted, can I basically take over the legal action from the current owner, i.e the rent arrears etc would still count even though they werent owed to me?

2. The redevelopment rule - could anyone tell me how much redevelopment has to be done to evict the tenant using this rule? The place is in a right state (he's living there with 5 dogs) and needs to be completely ripped out and started again, would this be enough?

Cheers!!

Dom

[jo_mo31]

Thanks for this, we will try to put up the rent to the market rate.
We would be glad to make some repairs to the house to attempt to keep its value.
However, your comment that "its their home...no wonder they feel defensive" is irrelevant to my questions. In our opinion it may be their home but it is our house.
We will also book in an inspection.

Thanks

[Telometer]

We believe the property is in a fairly bad state of repair due to the valuation for the estate / view from outside the property.

The valuation will have been diminished considerably owing to the presence of sitting tenants. Somewhere between probably 20 and 50% of market value for vacant possession probably. The valuation report should state this.

Assuming grandfather's estate to have been large enough for IHT, remember that a large quantity of IHT was saved on account of their presence (40% of the difference between vacant possession and current state). So it's probably not all bad.

[jeffrey]

Yes (on point 1). On completion, you will need V's Letter of Authority in your favour. This should authorise T to pay all rent (inc. arrears b/f) to you. V may insist that you clear the amount (= pay it on completion to V) in consideration of V assigning to you his right to recover the arrears. Once you have completed, send to T:
a. that Letter;
b. Notice under s.3 of LTA 1985; and
c. Notice under s.48 of LTA 1987.

[Telometer]

Trust me, inheriting a property with a protected tenant can definitely be a bad thing. Some of these properties have a negative yield even without financing costs. A new roof; a rent overpayment situation on account of an illegally increased rent; widespread disrepair; council EH involvement with statutory notices, local charges etc. etc. etc.

AND add to that an emotional attachment to this money pit and a feeling of complete frustration - and a T who is an absolute manipulative cow.

[zeemax_mini]

Thanks very much Jeffrey - that's very helpful indeed. I've been told that the current owner has started proceedings against the tenant yesterday, could you tell me a bit more about what that involves and if I bought it what I'd be taking on? I understand you must send a letter explaining that you're going to start trying to get posession back, and state the grounds on which your case will rely (rent arrears in this case). Will the current owner now be arranging a court date, or how does it work?

Many thanks!

Dom

[jeffrey]

I don't want to sound unhelpful- but why not ask your solicitor?

[zeemax_mini]

I've not instructed a solicitor yet as I want to be clear about what I'd be looking at taking on before i begin incurring costs if I can help it! I understand that's a bit cheeky!

Cheers,

Dom

[Bel]

However, your comment that "its their home...no wonder they feel defensive" is irrelevant to my questions. In our opinion it may be their home but it is our house.


Thanks




If you gain their cooperation it will be happier for everyone. I assumed that because they did not show you their tenancy agreement when you asked for it, they probably know whats coming and feeling very defensive; waiting for your first move. If this is not the case, then the comment is irrelevant as you say.

I have had my own experience with assured tenancies granted in a similar scenario. Had I upset the tenant, it could have resulted in huge court costs.Treat them with consideration and they may be less demanding.

The house isn't yours because they are likely to have an assured tenancy and they are entitled to remain as long as they pay a fair rent. They are likely to be there for a long time to come. You just own the freehold. It can feel quite frustrating for new landlords to accept this when they come into property, but these laws were designed to protect people in their own homes. You can sell with your tenants in situ if you want to realise the value.

It can be worthwhile to have steady tenants...which can be an advantage over trying to let and re-let to flighty twenty-somethings if you keep it as an investment.

[ll12345]

Hello,

I'm thinking of buying a property at a reduced price, which is occupied by a sitting tenant and his son. I've been told by the estate agents selling the property that the sitting tenant would almost certainly vacate the property if he and his son were bought a flat/house for approx £100k.

The house being sold is under valued by about £200k, because of the sitting tenant.

Does this sort of thing happen very often, and it is watertight?

Thanks

[jeffrey]

First, verify how long this Tenancy has been running. Particularly check any changes/discontinuities in early 1989 or in early 1997.

[Poppy]

It happens, but not sure how often. One of the ways of removing a sitting tenant from a property is for the landlord to offer a financial incentive.

You will need a solicitor to draw up some sort of surrender document so that the conditions are for the tenant and all potential successors to vacate and relinquish their claims and the landlord to provide alternative accommodation in the form of a property bought in the tenant's name.

If the tenant declines the offer, then the tenant remains with all rights intact.

You need to do a lot of careful research and planning, starting with deducing exactly what type of tenancy you are dealing with BEFORE deciding to buy.

[ll12345]

First, verify how long this Tenancy has been running. Particularly check any changes/discontinuities in early 1989 or in early 1997.


Jeff,

Assuming the worse case scenario, and they have a cast iron right to stay there, father and then son, ad infinitum. If they are agreeable, it is legal, and relatively straight-forward to buy them their own property so as to vacate the current property.

Thanks

[jta]

Jeff,

Assuming the worse case scenario, and they have a cast iron right to stay there, father and then son, ad infinitum. If they are agreeable, it is legal, and relatively straight-forward to buy them their own property so as to vacate the current property.
Thanks

But, (and I will be corrected if I'm wrong), why are you thinking of giving them the property? Why not just guarantee their regulated tenancy status for the rest of their lives and retain ownership of the asset?

[jeffrey]

If OP gains £200 000 in this property's value vacant, is it not worth giving T £100 000 to vacate it?

[jta]

If OP gains £200 000 in this property's value vacant, is it not worth giving T £100 000 to vacate it?

That's the OP's decision of course, but 'twas me, I would want to keep ultimate control of the place if I could. Don't forget I have one of these tenants myself, I'm not even allowed to inspect the place let alone improve it, I'm just doing my best to outlive him. :p

[s1974lee]

I had a similar issue when I inherited a house from my Uncle. After much legal wranglings I was so stressed with it all that I ended up just selling it to a company that dealt in buying properties with sitting tenants. If this ever happened again I would just sell straight away.

[gregofradyr]

I am in the process of purchasing a flat in which there is a tenant (since 1991). There is a signed short term assured tenancy agreement relating to this tenancy dated 1991, but no evidence that the landlord served a section 20 notice at the time that the agreement was signed.

My understanding is that the absence of evidence of this could allow the tenant to claim that he has greater rights than the short term assured tenancy would give him and could make it difficult for me to secure vacant possession in the future.

However, I have discussed with him my plans for modernising the flat - if I go ahead with the purchase - and my willingness for him to stay as a tenant, and have asked him if he would be willing to sign a new short term assured tenancy agreement. And he has indicated that he would be very willing to do this.

My question is:

◦would this new agreement (in the event that in the future I might need to sell the flat with vacant possession) take precedence over any previous tenancy agreement he has with the current owner of the flat?
◦or would he be able to argue that he has existing statutory tenancy rights which could not be "diluted" by his signing a new agreement.
Thanks for any suggestions?

[P.Pilcher]

Subject to anything contradictradictory posted by our legal experts, I fear that you ar correct. The assured tenancy he holds will override anything he signs with you once you purchase the property. As an assured tenant however, he should be obliged to pay market rent for the property.

P.P.

[jeffrey]

Is T still holding on the basis of the 1991 SAT? After nineteen years?

[gregofradyr]

Is T still holding on the basis of the 1991 SAT? After nineteen years?

The tenancy agreement produced by the vendor is dated 1991. I'm not aware of any updated agreement.

[delboypass]

Hi,
I have recently bought a flat at auction with a sitting tenant.
The previous landlord and his solicitor have not handed a copy of the tenants tenancy agreement over to my solicitor.
I have written to the tenant to request a copy of the lease agreement.

This will be my first BTL or property with a tenant occupying the property.

What rights do i have to the tenant when a copy of the lease has not been provided.

I will taken possession of the property on 24th June.

Do i need to have anything in place on this date such as insurance?

How do i handle elements such as:
- Inventory
- Flat inspection
- Work on flat due to home report (serious repairs due from use or neglect)
- Initiating contact with Tenant
- Having rent paid to me

Any advice really appreciated.

Del

[mind the gap]

How long has the tenant been living there?

Can you still pull out?

[jta]

Your solicitor should be doing all that for you, including getting hold of the deposit. Do not complete until you have everything in place.

[delboypass]

Ok, Ill speak to my solicitor tomorrow.

I dont know how long tenant been there.

The property went to auction through a repossessed BTL.

What legal rights do i have to contact the tenant when the title deeds to the property are not yet transferred into my possession?

Would the previous landlord have been required to put the tenants deposit into deposit protection if tenant been there for a long time?

Del

[jta]

If the tenancy started before 6/4/07 and has NOT been renewed since then then no it did not have to be put into a scheme. Your solicitor should adjust the money accordingly. Then you place it in a scheme immediately.

[delboypass]

Hi JTA,

- What rights do i have to contact the Tenant prior to receiving the title deeds. Can i go around to the flat and ask questions?

NB: I live in Scotland if that changes any of these answers.

(In answering question can i pull out: Well i already paid 10% deposit of £65000...so would prefer not to.)

[jeffrey]

Hi JTA,

- What rights do i have to contact the Tenant prior to receiving the title deeds. Can i go around to the flat and ask questions?

NB: I live in Scotland if that changes any of these answers.

(In answering question can i pull out: Well i already paid 10% deposit of £65000...so would prefer not to.)
You live in Scotland, but is the property in E&W or there?
If it's in Scotland too, we probably cannot assist. Most LZ members advise only re law in E&W [usually different from that in Scotland].

[Moderator1]

Several largely similar questions on separate threads have been merged into this thread (hence the repetitive nature of answers).

[P.Pilcher]

If they pay their rent, none. The only hope is to ask then to leave voluntarily in exchance for a "sweetner"

P.P.

[jeffrey]

If they pay their rent, none. The only hope is to ask then to leave voluntarily in exchance for a "sweetner".
Are you familiar with Scottish law and is that procedure valid there?