'Suitable Alternative Accomodation' for sitting tenant

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • jeffrey
    replied
    Originally posted by quarterday View Post
    I am curious to research the byzantine byways of the Rent Act further to find an answer, and am still of the view expressed earlier, that a relocated tenant is still a tenant under the original tenancy. However, as tenancies under the Rent act are in reality governed by statute rather than an agreement, and indeed it is very rare for a rent act tenant to have a written agreement, the difference is pretty academic save for one point.

    Under the rent capping legislation, there is a very small number of exemptions to the application of the cap, one of which is where the application for "fair" rent is a first registration. If Jeffrey were right that is a new tenancy created by subsitutute alternative accomodation, it would mean that any landlord rehousing a tenant could get round the rent cap rules, whereas our friends in (what used to called) the Rent Officer Service do not consider a relocated tenant a new tenancy - and- hence exempt the rent capping order if the tenant has previously had a rent registered albeit at another address.
    I have found s.39 of Housing Act 1988. Does this help?

    Where there is (on/after 15 Jan. 1989) succession to a 1977 Act letting, Part I of Schedule 4 to the 1988 Act amends Part I of Schedule 1 to the 1977 Act. The successor acquires, by s.39(5), a special statutory assured periodic tenancy largely following the 1977 Act tenancy's conditions [s.39(6)].

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    Originally posted by quarterday View Post
    Geoffrey
    Who's that, then?

    Leave a comment:


  • quarterday
    replied
    can a new rent act tenancy with diminished succession rights be created?

    I am curious to research the byzantine byways of the Rent Act further to find an answer, and am still of the view expressed earlier, that a relocated tenant is still a tenant under the original tenancy. However, as tenancies under the Rent act are in reality governed by statute rather than an agreement, and indeed it is very rare for a rent act tenant to have a written agreement, the difference is pretty academic save for one point.

    Under the rent capping legislation, there is a very small number of exemptions to the application of the cap, one of which is where the application for "fair" rent is a first registration. If Geoffrey were right that is a new tenancy created by subsitutute alternative accomodation, it would mean that any landlord rehousing a tenant could get round the rent cap rules, whereas our friends in (what used to called) the Rent Officer Service do not consider a relocated tenant a new tenancy - and- hence exempt the rent capping order if the tenant has previously had a rent registered albeit at another address.

    What does Megarry have to say? Does anyone have a copy to hand??

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    Originally posted by quarterday View Post
    Jeffrey : Do you at least agree that if a tenant who is a second successor is moved, no additional and further successors to the original tenancy are entitled to succeed to what you consider to be a new rent act tenancy?
    Yes, I do agree. Clearly, the new letting is in substitution for the old one. But it's not the same tenancy, no matter how it arises.

    Leave a comment:


  • quarterday
    replied
    is it a new rent act tenancy or the original tenancy, different accommodation?

    Originally Posted by jeffrey
    You'll need to comply with Schedule 15: produce either the Local Housing Authority's certificate [para. 3] or the evidence demanded by para. 4.
    NOTE: the new letting will, I think, be a RENT ACT TENANCY.


    Posted by Quarterday

    It will not be a new letting; it will be a transfer to different accommodation of an existing tenancy. It will indeed be the same rent act tenancy.




    Jeffrey : Do you at least agree that if a tenant who is a second successor is moved, no additional and further successors to the original tenancy are entitled to succeed to what you consider to be a new rent act tenancy? If so, this must surely prove that it is in fact the original statutory tenancy in respect of which the accommodation has been substituted.

    If you were right that A NEW RENT ACT tenancy is being created it is unlikely that any landlord would ever have been prepared to move a tenant (or as is so often the case today) a successor to a rent act tenancy.

    Furthermore, I do not believe by statute a New Rent Act tenancy can be created; only succession rights remain.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    Yes, it can be increased. However, the letting is governed by the Rent Act 1977. This limits L's power to increase rent and involves the Rent Officer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Interlaken
    replied
    If the tenant moved to this new flat could the rent be increased to reflect the more salubrious surroundings? I have a relative in this very situation at the moment who won't move out for repairs in case he is charged more rent. Consequently he is living in 1950's conditions - only electric fires and poor state windows and doors.

    In this case the landlord applies bi-annually to have the rent increased - this time it was by £44 a month.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    Originally posted by quarterday View Post
    I think not Jeffrey, for if it was a "new letting" under the rent act, there would be rights to wholly new successors, whereas the person being moved might be the last successor (ie daughter of a widow to whom a tenancy has devolved); substituting accommodation is possible under the same tenancy agreement.
    If a tenant is temporarily moved out for works into a much larger house, he still holds it -albeit temporarily- by virtue of the original rent act tenancy.
    Still no. A tenancy is not transplantable. End of.

    Leave a comment:


  • quarterday
    replied
    is it a new tenancy or the same tenancy transferred to a different premises

    I think not Jeffrey, for if it was a "new letting" under the rent act, there would be rights to wholly new successors, whereas the person being moved might be the last successor (ie daughter of a widow to whom a tenancy has devolved); substituting accommodation is possible under the same tenancy agreement.
    If a tenant is temporarily moved out for works into a much larger house, he still holds it -albeit temporarily- by virtue of the original rent act tenancy.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    Originally posted by quarterday View Post

    It will not be a new letting; it will be a transfer to different accommodation of an existing tenancy. It will indeed be the same rent act tenancy.
    No, it won't. A tenancy cannot be transplanted from property1 to property2. It will be a new letting, albeit within the 1977 Act.

    Leave a comment:


  • tom_p
    replied
    Thanks for your advice and you're probably right that incentives are the easiest way to encourage her to move. No one whats to use the law so a new kitchen and bathroom will hopefully do it.

    Many thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • quarterday
    replied
    moving a sitting tenant

    Originally posted by jeffrey View Post
    You'll need to comply with Schedule 15: produce either the Local Housing Authority's certificate [para. 3] or the evidence demanded by para. 4.
    NOTE: the new letting will, I think, be a RENT ACT TENANCY.




    It will not be a new letting; it will be a transfer to different accommodation of an existing tenancy. It will indeed be the same rent act tenancy.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    Originally posted by tom_p View Post
    As far as my case is concerned, all of the above criteria for suitability would be met as the new flat is identical to the current one (except it is newly renovated) and could be let with all the existing rights of the tenant still in place. My concern are how the court defines "reasonable grounds", since as post 2 highlights it is hard to combat an argument based on grounds of sentimentality.
    You'll need to comply with Schedule 15: produce either the Local Housing Authority's certificate [para. 3] or the evidence demanded by para. 4.
    NOTE: the new letting will, I think, be a RENT ACT TENANCY.

    Leave a comment:


  • quarterday
    replied
    litigating to move a tenant

    every time you think of going to the law to permanently move a sitting tenant, grab a large saucepan and hit yourself over the head until the idea goes out of your mind. I thought exactly the same as you - identical factual matrix, and lost! And my barrister told me that the solicitor we used ought to have known that nowadays the county court judges are very loathed to enforce a sitting tenant to move.

    You'd be much better off to follow my advice and offer her, if she is interested a couple or even a few thousand pounds ex gratia if she would care to transfer her tenancy to your other flat. Such a sum would be a mere bud on a burgeoning sapling of legal costs you will incur and most likely to no effect. Believe me, this is not one to litigate!

    Leave a comment:


  • tom_p
    replied
    As far as my case is concerned, all of the above criteria for suitability would be met as the new flat is identical to the current one (except it is newly renovated) and could be let with all the existing rights of the tenant still in place. My concern are how the court defines "reasonable grounds", since as post 2 highlights it is hard to combat an argument based on grounds of sentimentality.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X