Some time ago I wrote a blog post in my ‘Urban Myths’ series about how, when a landlord lets a property to a tenant, its not his any more.
This post has been much quoted on the forums by tenants and has generally been rather popular.
However I was contacted by a reader recently who said that some people on the forums were now saying that the article was misleading.
I was quoted one comment which said
“This stuff about a tenant temporarily “owning” a property is becoming boring. If I lend someone a book, it does not temporarily belong to them. It still belongs to me (hence they could not sell it).”
Hmm.
What is the law?
The law is the Law of Property Act 1925 section 1. This says:
The only estates in land which are capable of subsisting or of being conveyed or created at law are—
(a) An estate in fee simple absolute in possession;
(b) A term of years absolute.
This is, as is usual with statutes, couched in difficult legal language, but what it is saying is that there are two types of legal ownership of land recognised by the law.
- The first one, the estate in fee simple, is freehold. This is the nearest you can get in this country to owning land absolutely, as all land is technically held from the Monarch.
- The second, the term of years, is leasehold. Which is what we are talking about here.
Note that the words ‘lease’ and ‘tenancy’ are strictly speaking the same thing (a ‘term of years’), but we tend to use the word ‘lease’ for long leases and ‘tenancy’ for short lets.
Owning the property
When you are granted a tenancy or a lease of land / property, during the period of the lease you ‘own’ that land / property, and this applies whether you have a long 999 year lease or just a six month AST.
Of course it is a different type of ownership to freehold. In fact for there to be a leasehold ownership, there has to be a freehold ownership first and there will continue to be a freehold owner as well as a leasehold owner throughout the period of the lease.
It is one of the fundamental concepts of land law that several people can ‘own’ legal interests in the same piece of land at the same time – for example
- Fred can own the freehold of the Blackacre Estate
- Tanya own a tenancy of a cottage on the estate under an AST
- Nigel the neighbour can own a right of way over the land (including over part of the cottage garden), and
- The Megabank can hold a mortgage over the whole estate
This is because land is different from anything else and there is special area of law, land law, to deal with it.
When he leases a property, the freehold owner retains certain rights in respect of it – such as the right to receive rent (with long leases this is known as ‘ground rent’) and the right to end the lease in certain circumstances and get the property back.
However unless this is done in the proper way – and if the tenant / leaseholder does not agree this will normally have to be via the courts – the property belongs to the tenant / leaseholder. For the duration of the lease (or tenancy)
This is why, for example, the tenant has the right to keep (with a few exceptions such as police with a search warrant) everyone out of the property – including the landlord!
The right to sell
To deal with the comment on the forum – renting a property is NOT the same as borrowing a book! Unlike a book borrower, the tenant has a legal interest in the land, and is also a party to a binding legal contract under which he pays rent.
And – the tenant DOES have the right to sell it!
Not the freehold of course, the tenant does not own the freehold, but the tenancy or lease. It is known as ‘assignment’ and is very common with long leases – if you ‘buy’ a flat, in most cases what you are actually doing is taking an assignment of a lease of the flat.
In short lets the right to assign the tenancy is still possible but in most cases is excluded under the terms of the tenancy agreement – landlords do not want to carefully screen and reference tenants only to have them assign the tenancy to an impecunious troublemaker. However in some circumstances they can still be assigned.
Why this is important
Landlords of short lets often find it very difficult to accept that they have effectively lost control over their property – witness the ferocious discussion on my post here about landlords’ inspection rights.
The feeling among some landlords is that someone who has (for example) rented their bedsit for six months or so, cannot possibly have any legal claim over it or indeed any real rights.
If you rent out a flat on a long lease of 99 years you have to accept that you have lost control of it for a very long time. However with short lets, landlords get the property back again every few months or (for longer lets) every year or so, and so the ‘transfer of legal title’ issue does not feel real to them.
The book analogy is a case in point. Renting a property is nothing like borrowing a book – the two are not directly comparable. However obviously some landlords think it is.
This psychological attitude of landlords is one of the big problems in the private rented sector and is probably at the root of many of the bad practices that go on.
What do you think?
Help for Tenants
If you are a tenant and your landlord is entering your property without your consent, find guidance and draft letters to help in my Tenant Advice Guide
Rent Rebel says
January 13, 2015 at 9:20 PMHave you stunned the landlords into silence with that one Tessa?
HB Welcome says
January 14, 2015 at 11:00 AM“Landlords of short lets often find it very difficult to accept that they have effectively lost control over their property – witness the ferocious discussion on my post here about landlords’ inspection rights.”
The only people ferociously discussing that were lawyers, not landlords.
Do you have a link to the book analogy comment? Was that posted by a landlord?
Marvin says
January 15, 2015 at 10:25 AMNot only was that comment written by someone who is a landlord but that poster also claims they are a qualified solicitor.
Ivan says
January 15, 2015 at 11:20 AMThe comment was from a LL (and a solicitor if im not mistaken)
HB Welcome says
January 15, 2015 at 12:59 PMNot according to this;
http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=139685&page=1
“I am no landlord’s stooge and indeed no landlord – I do not even own property but am a tenant myself.”
As I said, the only people ferociously discussing it were lawyers, not landlords.
Whether he is a qualified lawyer or not (I believe he is), he is certainly knowledgeable about the subject,
Ivan says
January 15, 2015 at 4:12 PMI meant the person on Moneysavingexpert who made the book comment was claiming to be a LL and a Solicitor.
Not the rather long post on this blog from earlier last year
Tessa Shepperson says
January 14, 2015 at 11:04 AMI think it was on Martin Lewis’ money saving expert forum somewhere http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/
Ben Reeve Lewis says
January 14, 2015 at 11:11 AMYou are right Tessa, the book and other similar analogies are indicative of a certain mindset that drives so many TRO complaints.
I remember a couple of years ago explaining the possession procedure to a landlord on the phone. He was incredulous and said to me “You arent seriously telling me that there are laws that tell a man what he and cant do with his property!!!…they’ll laugh you out of court man”.
From time to time we get these ideas where in order to get British citizenship you have to know things about cricket or Morris dancing to get a passport. I think All people considering becoming a landlord and newbie letting agents should be made to read and understand your article above.
It would help reduce incidents of harassment and illegal eviction and in all likelihood deter many people who are considering becoming one.
HB Welcome says
January 14, 2015 at 11:51 AMThanks Tessa, found it!
The reply to the book analogy comment was this;
“The tenant owns the right to live there without interference from the LL and has exclusive use of the property.
It’s very similar to owning a leasehold property. The freeholder still owns the building, you just lease it for certain amount of time.
If you don’t like it? Tough, that’s the law.”
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5137840&highlight=tenant+temporarily+owning+property+is+becoming+boring&page=2
Ivan says
January 14, 2015 at 4:33 PMJust wanted to say – That’s my reply 🙂
Audrey @ Move out Mates says
January 14, 2015 at 1:56 PMThis is a really interesting topic, I went and read most of the resources that were linked (and the ones linked there, etc..) and it’s still quite hard to grasp the concept of possession by somebody with no legal background.
Anyway, there are a few questions I need to ask to make sure I got it all:
Say, I’m renting a property on a standard AST agreement for one year. I’m able to “sell” the shorthold lease over the property to somebody else (provided it’s not blocked in the agreement already).
Does the new owner of the shorthold lease follow the same agreement I signed, or does it need to review the agreement with the one owning the freehold ?
Furthermore, if tenant A damaged or somehow lowered the market value of a property and then sold their lease to tenant B, does tenant B becomes responsible for raising the value to it’s original measures ?
And finally, what becomes of the tenancy deposit when a lease is transferred ? Is it returned to the original tenant A or tenant B ? And, if it’s returned to tenant A, can it be liable and deducted for damages by tenant B ??
I’m sorry for this series of questions, but it’s complicated and I’m not sure how things go in such a situation.
Obviously, I doubt to ever see one, but my curiosity gets the better of me, most of the times.
Tessa Shepperson says
January 14, 2015 at 3:07 PMAudrey –
Any lease, whether it is a shop or flat, whether it is for 99 years or 9 weeks, is capable of being assigned. Whether you can actually assign any particular lease will depend on the precise circumstances. For example, the majority of short leases / tenancies will prohibit assignment.
If a lease / tenancy is assigned, the new owner (or assignee) will have the same rights and obligations as the original owner. They will just take over, or ‘step into their shoes’. So far as the documentation is concerned, there will be the original lease and the deed of assignment, which transfers the ownership of the lease from the original owner to the assignee.
In a short let situation it is probably best for the new tenant and the landlord to sign a new tenancy agreement. However this will not be done for longer, say 99 year lease, where assignment is the norm.
When you say ‘altered the value’, this depends on whether you mean the value of the lease / tenancy or the value of the freehold property.
In a short let situation you are probably talking about the tenant damaging the freehold property so when the tenancy ends the landlord cannot re-let at the same rent without doing repair work to the property. In this situation the tenant will normally, under the terms of the tenancy, be obliged to compensate the landlord for this.
In a long lease situation the value of the property will decrease so the owner of the flat will probably not be able to sell / assign the lease for as much as they would have done had the damage not been done. So far as the lessee’s liablity to the freeholder is concerned, this will depend on the terms of the lease.
I don’t do long lease work so someone else will know best how this works. However if the lease is not due to end for 90 years, this is different from a flat where the lease / tenancy will end in 2 months.
Tenancy deposits are only really relevant for short lets. For example you don’t pay a freeholder a deposit when you buy a flat for 99 years.
Note that this post is about leases not deposits so please can people not post comments about deposits and the deposit regulations here.
Paul says
January 15, 2015 at 9:01 AMOf course, these laws also act as deterrent to those people that want to become good, responsible landlords. The lack of control, and the substantial financial losses that go with it, are high risk and heavily weighted in favour of the tenant. Surely the law should protect both sides equally?
Ben says
January 15, 2015 at 10:48 AMI don’t agree with that. If a landlord ends up with a bad tenant (a situation which they are quite well equipped to avoid in the first place, if they take adequate precautions) their potential losses are mostly financial. Landlords should have adequate contingency funds to deal with this. A realistic business owner accepts that there will inevitably be losses from time to time – but too many private landlords seem to think that any kind of loss (e.g. voids between tenancies, redecorating between tenancies from their own pocket) is unacceptable.
On the other hand, if a tenant ends up with a bad landlord they stand to lose their home (as well as potential financial losses). This, IMO, is more deserving of protection under law.
Tessa Shepperson says
January 15, 2015 at 4:57 PMRenting out property to tenants to live in is now treated as a service industry provided by a business owner to a consumer.
Like any business activity you need to take adequate precautions – in this case carefully checking the tenants before you let them in.
If landlords choose to allow tenants into occupation without doing this they have only themselves to blame if the tenants turn out to be unsatisfactory.
The fact that a landlord is an ‘amateur’ landlord and not a professional will not affect a tenants rights. It is after all, his (or her) home.
Kate says
February 16, 2015 at 1:51 PM“Kirsten
(a Scottish criminal lawyer – not a specialist in English property law by any means!)”
That really sums it up. As an English housing caseworker I regularly explained Scottish housing, or any criminal law are entirely different and not areas I had any expertise in.
(btw – Scottish law has MORE protection for tenants – hopefully if you’ve been a landlord you’ve at least researched that)
I was an accidental landlord with precisely the scenario you described (had to move for a few years) – On making that decision – firstly I had the privilege of someone else paying for my home (capital asset) while I lived elsewhere, secondly I made my decision on the understanding that there may be losses (such as rent arrears / decorating costs) – accidental or not, being a landlord involves legal liabilities – if someone cannot handle them, then they shouldn’t be a landlord.
When I was a housing caseworker (English Housing Law) I would frequently have to tell people I couldn’t advise on Scottish Law as its totally different …
Also ‘no I couldn’t possibly advise on criminal law, as that’s entirely different to most housing law which is civil and / or based on legislation’
Kirsten says
January 16, 2015 at 1:52 PMHi all,
It was I who wrote the comment about the lending of the book. I appreciate it wasn’t a 100% analogy of (English) property law. I was trying to make a point about how possession does not equal ownership. Eg if something is stolen, if never ceases belonging to the one from whom it was stolen.
I suppose the borrower of a book could further lend (sublease) the book – probably with the consent of the owner. But he could never sell the ownership of the book itself as he never owned it. That’s the point.
I agree with whoever said that tenants like to wind up LLs by stating that they are the “owners” during the period of the tenancy. Tenants want the rights and not the responsibilities of ownership (or perhaps I SHOULD send them the bill for the tiles falling off the roof in the wind?!)
Anyhow, interesting points and interesting discussion. I have a difficulty, however, with posters on MSE, however, quoting this blog as legal authority!
Kirsten
(a Scottish criminal lawyer – not a specialist in English property law by any means!)
Kirsten says
January 16, 2015 at 2:00 PMPrompted by Paul & Ben, above:
I agree that we need to ensure LLs retain rights over what is likely a very valuable asset to them. Otherwise prudent folk might be less likely to become LLs, leaving the business to the shark LLs who will never abide by the rules anyway!
Separately, please don’t assume that all LLs are greedy businessmen with loads of property and their own home too. What about the protection for people who saved hard to buy their own place then lost their job/had to move for work/couldn’t sell and so ended up HAVING to rent their place out? Maybe for rock bottom rent? They don’t have a contingency fund! The are often referred to as “accidental” landlords. (I always get pelters for using that term on MSE because it apparently implies that accidental LLs don’t have to abide by the rules).
Kirsten says
January 16, 2015 at 2:09 PMHere is an up-to-date discussion on MSE about this topic.
I like the poster who described “layers” of ownership.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5153488
Tessa Shepperson says
January 16, 2015 at 2:18 PMIt depends on what you mean by ‘ownership’. Tenants own the tenancy, not the freehold.
However a tenancy is a property right and under the Law of Property Act 1925 one of the two types of legal estate which exist in law. While they own the tenancy, tenants and their visitors etc) are the sole people who have the right to enter and use the property (subject to police with warrants, etc).
Landlords CAN get it back again – but only either in agreement with the tenant (surrender) or by order of the court.
Someone owning a tenancy is not comparable, I’m sorry but they are not, with someone who has borrowed or stolen a book.
It may be different in Scotland, I am not a Scottish lawyer, I am an English lawyer and this blog relates to law in England.
This blog also does not take ‘sides’ – there are nightmare landlords and nightmare tenants and law has to encompass the rights of both. I try to be as even handed as I can and state what the law is.
Kirsten says
January 16, 2015 at 2:41 PMThanks Tessa.
Obviously the tenant owns his own leasehold.
But they do not at any point own the bricks and mortar or the freehold, right?
Tenants on MSE would have you believe that they step into the shoes of the LL in terms of rights of ownership during the period of the tenancy. (Without the responsibilities, obviously!)
Kirsten says
January 16, 2015 at 2:45 PMThe problem with MSE is that it is UK-wide and everyone has to declare up front is the property in Eng & Wales or in Scotland!
Hence my disclaimer here.
For the avoidance of doubt, I agree tenants have a right to sole possession, use and enjoyment and shouldn’t be chucked out without due process. I’ve been a tenant and a LL. And never had a single, problem during either! Due to mutual trust and respect. Not by harping on about my rights! But then maybe I did my homework with my LL and my tenants.
Kirsten says
January 16, 2015 at 3:32 PMSorry – not meaning to spam this forum.
Tessa, your original blog-post on this topic talked about LLs being unable to enter the premises because it was the tenant’s “property”. I think that is what is misleading?
– the bricks and mortar & freehold still belong to the LL so it is still (physically) his property;
– it is the Tenant’s rights to quiet possession etc that prevents the LL entering. Not the Tenant’s “ownership”.
Ben Reeve-Lewis says
January 16, 2015 at 5:02 PMKirsten you say “What about the protection for people who saved hard to buy their own place then lost their job/had to move for work/couldn’t sell and so ended up HAVING to rent their place out?”
Fair point and what about the tenants who never miss a payment, maintain the property in pristine condition and yet who are forced to go through the stress and cost of having to look for alternative accommodation simply because the landlord wills it through s21 proceedings? (S33 in Scotland)
Its a two way street and yet I often despair that so many landlords think they are the only ones hard done by.
As Tessa states there are nightmare tenants AND nightmare landlords.
Also I’m surprised to hear a lawyer refer to people ‘Harping on about rights”. The rights of numerous kinds, housing, employment, disability, have been hard fought for in England and Scotland, in some cases for a thousand years in the face of oppression and exploitation.
Those rights may inconvenience some but they are there for good, sound historical reasons.
For the past 25 years I have had to deal with landlords who harass, assault and illegally evict their tenants. Relatively small in number I grant you but 3 illegal eviction in a single day are not unusual and enquiries about a tenant’s right to stop their landlord entering the property without the tenant’s permission even more numerous.
Thank god those rights are in place.
Tessa Shepperson says
January 16, 2015 at 8:06 PM@Kirsten A tenant has the benefit of the covenant of quiet enjoyment because they own a tenancy (as opposed to just having a license).
Maybe ownership is the wrong word. All land is ultimately ‘owned’ by the Monarch anyway. In England there is no ‘allodial’ land (i.e. property / land without any superior title).
Maybe a better word is control. A tenant has control of a property during his ownership of the tenancy or lease. He has the right to stop the landlord coming in (save in emergency) and the right to compensation and an injunction to keep the landlord out if he persistently enters without permission.
The reason why this is an important issue is, as Ben says, because many landlords fail to accept that tenants have these rights.
They fail to understand (or probably don’t want to accept) that a tenancy is a legal interest in the property / land as important as their right as landlord and freeholder (if they are a freeholder, you can also have a sub lease of course).
We talk about ownership of a flat when you have a 99 year lease, so there is no reason why we should not likewise talk about ownership of a flat when you have a 12 months AST. The nature of the property right is the same – it is the time period of the ownership / control which differs. In both cases the tenant / lessee is entitled to refer to it as ‘my flat’.
There are of course big differences between a 99 year lease and an AST – for example is it is much easier for the landlord to recover possession after (and if there are rent arrears) during the term of an AST. The statutory repairing obligations do not apply to leases over 7 years and short lets do not have to be registered at the Land Registry.
But that does not alter the fact that a tenancy is a legal right over the land / property which the tenant owns.
Ben Reeve-Lewis says
January 16, 2015 at 8:17 PMI dont know about you but I find this a fascinating thread. The notion of a tenancy being a form of ownership is clearly an emotional issue rather than an intellectual one.
I think the originating article is the clearest, most unambiguous explanation I have ever read and yet there is still resistance to the notion.
This says a lot about the types of routine issues a TRO gets involved with on a daily basis and also explains why, as a tenant of a genuinely OK high street letting agent I get letters saying “Gas safe check due next month. No need to be there we can let ourselves in with our management keys”
Kirsten says
January 16, 2015 at 9:56 PMHi Ben,
My turn of phrase “harping on about rights” was a bit facetious, sorry. It was meant to emphasise that people are quick to claim rights but less quick to stick to their responsibilities.
I don’t doubt that many tenants ARE responsible, pay their rent on time etc. But the ones that change the locks and refuse to leave, claiming their “rights” whilst not paying rent…luckily I’ve never met any in real life but they make me think twice about ever being a LL again!
It’s an emotional thing because property is so expensive and people go through a lot to pay their mortgages.
Thank you, Tessa, for the legal explanations. I agree we should not use the word “ownership” without making it clear what EXACTLY we are talking about – freehold, leasehold, bricks and mortar, control/possession…
Anyhow, thanks for the debate. As you probably know, in Scotland, we have owners and tenants. We don’t have these long leases in residential properties. Eg up here if you talked about having “bought a 999yr lease” no-one would understand what you are talking about! Hence I have a clearer distinction between ownership (freehold style) and tenants (short).
Kirsten says
January 16, 2015 at 10:00 PMPS: Ben – the s21 type procedure – I appreciate it seems unfair that this can be done on a “no-fault” basis. But perhaps the LL needs to move himself and his family back in following a period of working away?
I highly doubt a LL would evict a good tenant “just for the sake of it”.
Marvin says
January 21, 2015 at 12:55 PMThe scenario is already covered by Section 8 Ground 1 which is a mandatory ground for eviction.
Ben Reeve-Lewis says
January 17, 2015 at 7:29 AM“I highly doubt a LL would evict a good tenant “just for the sake of it”.”
And this is the great divide between ordinary decent folk such as yourself and the complete nutjobs that TROs and housing advisers have to deal with on a daily basis.
Nobody believes how many of these idiots are out there. Probably true that few evict for the sake of it but the reasons for it can be incredibly trivial and not based on a change in their own circumstances.
Back in August the CML informed us that there were 1.5 million buy to let landlords out there. They should know. But the majority of cases I get involved in the mortgages are residential not BTL and the Mortagees know nothing of the letting so the figure is far higher than 1.5 million landlords.
Now, early last year Government informed us that only 5% of landlords were rogue/criminal. Probably true but if each of them has say only two tenants a piece that still means that any one time there are hundreds of thousands of tenants living in death traps with intimidating and aggressive landlords who will change the locks simply because the tenant complained to the council.
In my borough many of our worst landlords are triad gangs and East European people traffickers. Landlording is simply another additional form of income, as is running rental properties as brothels and cannabis farms.
Outside of the gangs are some phenomenally aggressive individuals who are using landllording as the basis of their operation and dont let things like tenant safety or trivial things like the law get in the way of them earning a single penny. Housing benefit gets suspended on Thursday? Your on the street by Friday.
I’m a housing law trainer as well as a TRO and for years I have run a course on harassment and illegal eviction. It was always a specialist course so I only got asked for it occasionally, but in the past two years I have been doing it more and more because council and housing advice teams across the country (not just inner London where I work) are seeing an increase in it as more landlords enter the game and their advisers and homelessness teams dont know how to deal with it.
Tenancies as a form of ownership form the bedrock of defendng tenants rights and the refusal to understand or accept that legal principle is what drives the criminal landlords to do what they do.
Kirsten says
January 17, 2015 at 9:55 AMHey Ben,
Wow, it really is a jungle out there! The problem is though that these shark LLs are never going to abide by the law anyway. So what is the solution? More council houses? Difficult when so many have been sold off. Increasing problem as well because more families splitting up so more homes needed. Or more Government help to buy your own property?
Thanks – yes, I think I have the ideal LL/Tenant agreement! I said it’s fine to put up pictures, I left them with a widescreen TV I didn’t need…in return, they look after the place – they fixed the shed roof themselves after a storm. My mum waters their plants when they’re away – (They felt no need to change the locks – they are also glad she can get in to sit there for a delivery for a new fridge freezer for them!)
I just say this to point out that it doesn’t need to be a war between the parties!
Lawcruncher says
January 17, 2015 at 9:59 AMTessa has indeed explained the position admirably well.
Concepts like “ownership” and “property” look straightforward enough, but if you examine them you soon realise they are a bit slippery. A way to look at it, especially with regard to land, is to distinguish between the thing and the rights enjoyed in respect of the thing. As Tessa says, strictly only the Crown owns land. The most you can own is an estate in land.
If you ask what estate is held you are really asking how long the land is held for. In the case of freehold land, more strictly an estate in fee simple, it is often thought that it is held for ever, but it is in fact only of indefinite duration. Using the old terminology the land is held by x and his heirs. That does not mean that x’s heirs have any interest in the land, but that on x’s death it passes to his heirs. If x sells to y the estate passes to y and his heirs. If x dies without heirs the estate passes to the crown.
An estate for a term of years is a tenancy.
As Tessa explained, more than one estate can exist in a given property at any time. Even if it were not the case that the Crown owns the bricks and mortar, it is not helpful to think of the landlord and tenant relationship in terms of who owns what part of physical property. Instead, you should ask what rights does each party have or “own”. What a landlord owns is the right to be paid rent and to get back possession when the tenancy ends and what a tenant owns is the right to possession. It is not really relevant who owns the bricks – more important is what the law says either party can do with the bricks while the tenancy lasts.
Short and long term tenancies are often thought of as being somehow essentially different, but they are not, even if a long leaseholder, having paid a premium, feels he must own something, whilst a tenant under an AST probably does not. If landlords get the idea they own something while tenants do not it only leads to problems.
Ben Reeve-Lewis says
January 17, 2015 at 11:19 AMKirsten they wont abide by the law but it gives us something to whack them with when we catch them and a tenant’s rights in a property form the backbone of that.
Like you it depresses me that landlords and tenants cant just get on. I’ve been a landlord in the past and I’m a very reluctant tenant now due to force of circumstances and I have no beef at all with mine. Never seen them, which is how I like it. Repairs are done upon notification and being a rogue landlord enforcement officer I use my bag of tricks to check out their financial stability every now and again in case the need to liquidate a few assets haha
HB Welcome says
January 17, 2015 at 11:49 AMJust to clarify a couple of factual points;
“Back in August the CML informed us that there were 1.5 million buy to let landlords out there. They should know. But the majority of cases I get involved in the mortgages are residential not BTL and the Mortagees know nothing of the letting so the figure is far higher than 1.5 million landlords.”
https://www.cml.org.uk/cml/publications/newsandviews/170/665
‘Across the UK, buy-to-let properties account for around one-third of the 4.7 million households living in privately rented accommodation.’
……………………………………………………
“Now, early last year Government informed us that only 5% of landlords were rogue/criminal. Probably true but if each of them has say only two tenants a piece that still means that any one time there are hundreds of thousands of tenants living in death traps with intimidating and aggressive landlords who will change the locks simply because the tenant complained to the council.”
Hundreds of thousands?
Do you have a link to this government information?
Ben Reeve-Lewis says
January 17, 2015 at 5:05 PMNo HB, I dont. I bow to your superior understanding and acknowledge that the full total of tenants living in poverty conditions and suffering harassment is actually 12
HB Welcome says
January 17, 2015 at 9:24 PMNow, now Ben. That would be about as realistic as claiming the Government have informed us there are hundreds of thousands.
Lawcruncher says
January 18, 2015 at 11:29 AMCoincidentally just found this in “Megarry & Wade” (and you cannot get a more authoritative book than that):
English law knows no abstract “ownership” as opposed to the right to recover possession.
Rent Rebel says
January 19, 2015 at 12:06 AMI always change the locks. And I do not hesitate to “harp on about my rights” if my landlord whistles off on any kind of power trip; especially a mis-informed one. I don’t hesitate to drag my eviction to court either and counterclaim for unattended repairs. A wise landlord always asks and never assumes.
Rent Rebel says
January 20, 2015 at 2:48 PMTessa, on reassignment, you said …
“In short lets the right to assign the tenancy is still possible but in most cases is excluded under the terms of the tenancy agreement – landlords do not want to carefully screen and reference tenants only to have them assign the tenancy to an impecunious troublemaker.”
Specifically, the law says:
“where the contract provides that the landlord’s consent is required before a tenant is allowed to ‘assign’ or sublet a fixed term tenancy, the landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably.[43] In other words, if the tenant wants to move before the end of the fixed term, and can find someone else to pay the rent for the rest of the term, then the landlord can object if the person involved is unsuitable, but cannot block the transaction without good reason.”
From the OFT guidance on Unfair Tenancy Terms, Chapter 4 Group 18 (d) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284440/oft356.pdf
Tessa Shepperson says
January 20, 2015 at 4:23 PM@Rent Rebel Yes, sure. I have always dealt with this by providing in my tenancy agreements that the tenant can end the tenancy early on one months notice if they can find a suitable replacement tenant, which the landlord cannot refuse unreasonably, and provided they pay the landlords reasonable costs. I don’t like assignment for short lets and think it is unsuitable.
This was accepted by the OFT when I discussed it with them years ago. Now of course the OFT have been shut down …
Rent Rebel says
January 20, 2015 at 6:11 PMExcluded but not prohibited; I wanted to be clear.
Out of interest, what do you deem to be a “short let” Tessa?
“Short” is anything less than 2 years in my book (despite the ideology that implies anything over 6 months is “long”) and wd certainly include a tenancy of 12 months – provision must exist (as does) to let tenants go if they want to; we cannot hold them ‘to ransom’ or insist on punishing their wallets for ‘daring to move’. Especially when we insist on fixing tenancy terms, so that all those lovely letting agents can keep making so much money.
Real life has a habit of getting in the way I realise and annoying so many landlords who frankly wd rather deny a tenant’s request and bully them into staying – but I don’t move house to annoy my landlord, or cos I like the instability. Really, I don’t. Assignment is a very practical and compassionate solution. Even if your lease is only one year long.
Tessa Shepperson says
January 21, 2015 at 1:00 PMIt depends on the context, but for me a long lease is one which is over 7 years (normally much more, ie 99 years) and has to be registered at the Land Registry.
Short lets are less than this, normally much less, 6 months to a year is the norm, and don’t have to be registered at the Land Registery (they are an overriding interest for any land law nerds interested).
This is just my view, its not a statutory definition.
Marvin says
January 27, 2015 at 6:51 AMWell it seems this issue of ownership still rages on the MSE Forum.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5161293
A thread started by a tenant who was unhappy that a letting agency let themselves into her home, without any notification, waking her husband who was on night shift that week up, has descended into complete and utter chaos about access during a tenancy. This lead to the inevitable…
“I OWN the property, I have the legal title, I pay the mortgage. the tenant rents the property from me ! renting a property doesn’t make them the owner in law, otherwise they wouldn’t be renting, they would be owning !! an owner can destroy their own property with no recourse to the courts, a renter cant, they would be prosecuted for destroying someone elses property. they may have the same rights as an owner for the duration of their tenure, but they are not the owners!”
When directed to this blog the landlord in question appreciates that ownership is complex but still doesn’t quite get it.
“yes there is definitely more to ownership than i originally understood, but in reading her blog and the comments and links to other blogs, it hasn’t changed my view that i am the owner of the property, bricks, mortar etc”
There are many landlords out there who really try and put the lord into landlord and act as though they are doing their tenants a favour by letting them live in THEIR property. Thankfully there are also some really decent and professional landlords too. If only all the really awful tenants could be paired up with the awful landlords.
I’m not sure what the answer is, abolishing the Section 21 perhaps? I understand why the Housing Act 1988 was brought in but I think things have swung too far the other way by making it too easy for any Tom, Dick or Harry to set up as a landlord which can result in tenants’ lives being made absolute hell.