security of tenure

[creswell]

Hi

an occupier lives in a room above a pub, he pays rent to the manageress of the pub who also resides on the premises (5 days a week). They have subsequently asked the occupier to leave with immediate effect due to falling behind with teh rent.

My question is therefore would this situation constitute resident landlord and a license? The manageress is not technically the landlord ( i believe a brewery owns it) but as he pays rent to the manageress does that technically make her his landlord and makes him a lodger with no security?

thanks as always for all your help.

[jeffrey]

The manageress may be acting only as owner's agent. You need to discover more about her and the letting; perhaps she was not authorised to sublet!

[creswell]

Thanks Jeffrey, I am in proces of finding out. Not sure how that would effect occupier 's status though. For instance Council tenants are not authorised to sub-let, but they do, and the occupiers are still legally granted AST's (if they have exclusive possesion).

If for instance the manageress has authority to collect rent on behalf of the management or brewery - she would be the agent, but would she also technically be the occupiers landlord?

Thanks again for advice.

[jeffrey]

Originally Posted by creswell

If for instance the manageress has authority to collect rent on behalf of the management or brewery - she would be the agent, but would she also technically be the occupiers landlord?

No. She'd be akin to a Letting Agent.

[westminster]

If the manageress is the resident tenant of the flat over the pub, and the occupier pays rent to her, I think the occupier is her lodger. It's her home and it makes sense that she should be able to evict the lodger without any major fuss.

[creswell]

I agree with westminster. Just because an individual is not the legal owner, does not prevent a legal relationship being created between those two parties. The manageress has sub-let the property rightly or wrongly and is technically acting as the occupiers landlord.

Again i will cite the example of a Council sub-let. The Council tenant is not the landlord but by the action of sub-letting (via exclusive possession) becomes a "mesne" landlord, the sub-tenant subsequently has rights afforded to him/her under legislation.

Thanks again for all opinions.

[jeffrey]

Originally Posted by creswell

I agree with westminster. Just because an individual is not the legal owner, does not prevent a legal relationship being created between those two parties. The manageress has sub-let the property rightly or wrongly and is technically acting as the occupiers landlord.

Again i will cite the example of a Council sub-let. The Council tenant is not the landlord but by the action of sub-letting (via exclusive possession) becomes a "mesne" landlord, the sub-tenant subsequently has rights afforded to him/her under legislation.

Thanks again for all opinions.

Contrary view: a Council officer who lets-out and/or collects rent for the Council is not L!

[Pepzofio]

Originally Posted by jeffrey

Contrary view: a Council officer who lets-out and/or collects rent for the Council is not L!

Yes, but generally speaking, council officers do not reside at the same premises as the council tenant they are taking rent from! He rents 'a room above the pub', where manageress also resides - not 'one of two apartments above the pub'.

Admittedly, the brewery could be letting out the flat over the pub as an HMO, using one room as staff accomodation and the other as an individual AST, but in the absence of a written agreement with the brewery & with tenant/lodger paying rent to manageress, I think it would be hard to prove in court that he was anything other than a lodger.

[jeffrey]

True but, at present, neither of us really has a clue about the legal position! We're both merely hazarding guesses.