Rent Act 1977 Tenant in HMO - questions

[Grange]

A few thoughts if you would please. It's quite complicated. It relates to Rent Act Tenancy, not ASTs, so please only comment if you are familiar with these circumstances.

A house was purchased in 1950 by Grandfather. Upon his death in 1995 it was placed in an A&M trust for the benefit of grandson Pete. Pete reached 25 this year, so obtained the Freehold of the house immediately prior to attaining 25 years of age.

The house has been in shared occupation since 1950. It continues to contain a protected tenant, but currently no other sharers. When placed in trust, father had (and continues to have) a 35 year lease over one of the rooms in the house and access to the shared parts (kitchen, bathroom), and Pete has lived in this room on and off for the last three years.

Instead of renting out the other rooms, Pete now wishes to move into the house occupying all the rooms save obviously for that occupied by the protected tenant. Kitchen and bathroom will continue to be shared. Can he?


The tenant appears to have disappeared... was last seen on 30 April. There is an outstanding electricity bill (in the name of Pete's uncle who lived there in the early 1980s).

Does the tenant have to continue to contribute to the shared electric bill?

The tenant currently has the benefit of a s57 Rent Act 1977 overpayment, so no unpaid rent is accruing.

Is the tenant able to knock the electric bill off his s57 overpayment?

Requirement of the house for his own dwelling, provided he has not purchased the house, is a legitimate ground (Case 9) for a lanlord's obtaining possession. Is there any hope for this?

Many thanks

[jeffrey]

1. Who is L for these purposes? It must have been Pete's father and, on vesting, it must now be Pete.
2. Is this therefore a restricted contract, under s.21 of Rent Act 1977?
3. Has T abandoned it, or is he just away for the time being?
4. If Pete's father obtained a 35-yr. lease in 1950, it must have now expired- so why do you state that he still holds it? Did you mean that the lease began only when the Trust began, in 1995?

[Grange]

Thank you.

1. L is now Pete. Who was L is a good question and I rather glossed over this one. Grandfather purchased the house in 1950. In 1968 he transferred it to Grandmother. She died in 1973 and left a life interest in the property to Grandfather. The property however was held in her estate, not distributed to him. Pete's aunt moved in c1978 with some friends. Aunt acted as L although rents were returned to Grandmother's estate. T arrived in 1980 and shared a room with another T, there being 5 living in the house in total. She paid £60 per month for her shared room. At some point in the early 1980s T stopped sharing her room, and Aunt moved out, the property being a shared house (or HMO as we now call them).

Grandfather died in 1993 and the property passed to Father. In 1995 father gifted it to Aunt who granted him a 35 year lease over one room and gifted the freehold into A&M trust.

2. Butterworths merely tells me that s21 has been repealed by HA88. I therefore do not know.

3. T wrote to say that she was 'on holiday', noting that s57 RA 77 allowed that his rent had been paid up until 2012. T has removed many of her possessions from the property.

4.

When placed in trust, father had (and continues to have) a 35 year lease

Yes, the lease was granted in 1995. I merely mention this as Pete has been living, on and off, in this part of the house, using the shared facilities for the past three years.

[jeffrey]

Repeal of s.21 of 1977 Act by Housing Act 1988 excepted any tenancy pre-dating 15 January 1989. For your purposes, treat s.21 as still in force. The same is true of s.19/20.

Text still appears in Halsbury's Statutes v23 (2004 Reissue), p.402-406. Send pm to me if you want it faxing.

[Grange]

Thanks.

Is it a restricted contract?

Well, following a certain amount of googling, I don't think I can make this assessment.

T moved in to a house that was run by the resident daughter of the deceased (aunt) - to whose estate it belonged, not having been distributed. I'm not certain whether that gives rise to a resident L.

Aunt moved out at some point, probably 1985ish. The family have "always" retained a room in the house for occasional trips to London - since 1995 this has been held on a lease by father. This room, however, has sometimes been let. For a while T rented it as a study.

I understand that rent rises since 1989 may be material. The rent has gone up - by mutual agreement but without any suitable documentation for the purposes of the Rent Act - since 1989. The Council has advised T that these rent increases are unlawful and that T is entitled to the overpayment provisions of s57. Accordingly perhaps the rent has NOT risen since this date?

What do you think? And what do you think about the electricity bill? And is repossession under Case 9 likely?

[jeffrey]

I think that this is beyond the scope of what the Forum can answer. A lot of research might be necessary to decide what sort of contractual nexus exists and re the impact of the Probate-linked devolution.

[Grange]

Thanks, indeed this is hugely complicated and well beyond what I would expect to be answered here. For CGT purposes it suits us very well indeed for T to be a Rent Act tenant. It is T's belief; it is the Council's belief.

It does bring me back to my original question.

Do courts ever grant possession under Case 9?

Can T knock the electricity bill of his s57 overpayment?

Is there an issue with Pete moving in and becoming a resident LL. On the basis that T is a protected T, L's moving in cannot possibly change that status.

[jeffrey]

There are (not surprisingly) lots of Law Reports about Case 9 litigation; see p.529-531 of Halsbury's Statutes v23.
T's tenancy dates from 1980, well before the lease of the room about which you enquire. Provided that T does not have a tenancy which includes the room, Pete should be OK- but who can tell for certain? Are you sure that this isn't an examination question?!

[Grange]

Thank you. I can feel a trip to the library coming on.

I should suggest that any examiner who came up with a question like this would deserve to be lynched!