Landlords could get caught out by holes in the Renters’ Rights Bill around possession and pets, a property solicitor has warned.
With the legislation only months away from going live, Bethen Abraham from Willans LLP Solicitors cites a scenario where a landlord needs a property for six months while her great aunt’s house is being refurbished, and wants to use the family provision under the new legislation to get the property back and re-let it once she leaves.
“The ‘close family member’ ground will extend to the landlord’s spouse, civil partner, or a person they live with as if married or in a civil partnership (and that person’s children or grandchildren), parents, grandparents, siblings, children or grandchildren,” explains Abraham.
“It is proposed that ‘half-blood’ relations will be included. It does not appear in this scenario that the new mandatory ground of occupation by family can be relied upon as aunts and uncles are not included.”
Another possible scenario is if an elderly landlord with an empty property wants to let it on an assured shorthold tenancy now and hopes to make use of it for their carer in the future.
“The Bill does not propose any grounds that could be relied upon to get vacant possession of a property back in order for a carer to move in,” says Abraham. “This is unless the landlord is going to also be moving into the property as their main home, or unless the carer is a close family member.”
On the thorny subject of pets, landlords with a mild allergy to cats and dogs considering a future move into their rental property might want to reject a tenant’s bid to have a cat or dog under the new regulations.
However, there is currently little guidance on what will constitute a 'good reason' to reject this type of request, says Abraham. “But if the landlord is able to evidence their reason - such as their allergy - and is able to justify how it could not be mitigated by say a deep clean of the property, then it may be sufficient.”
Tags:
Comments