Possible House Tenant Issue

[Helpneededfast]

We purchased a house for our daughter and while it has been refurbed she has married her short term bf, who have moved in a month ago. Now her husband who is from a very extended family has mentioned to my daughter last week that his uncle may be coming up for a few months along with "other family members", he has not asked me and put my daughter under pressure - she has said she will see what I say.. My issue is I do not want a situation where the other 9 people turn up and refuse to move out, as they are in rented property in London and struggling paying bills.

What can I do?

There is no tenancy agreement in place, should I get one and how do I put the exclusion in about other people? I am trying to be reasonable and trying to protect my investment..

TYIA

 

[IanSuth]

It's irrelevant what the wife says she's not a tenant and has no interest in the property?

Are you a lawyer?

How do you know how long and how much it costs to evict a tenant compared to how long and how much it would cost to kick out the partner of someone you've allowed to stay in a house for free???

Nowhere has the OP said her daughter is paying rent.

I assumed some form of rent as otherwise this makes little sense - you cant have a tenancy without some form of payment changing hands as that is part of the legal definition of a tenant


"There is no tenancy agreement in place, should I get one and how do I put the exclusion in about other people? I am trying to be reasonable and trying to protect my investment."

 

[Gyumri]

the idea before her marraige was to let her live there at the same rental value as her her house, but the money would be in a bank account when she wants to move up.

If he's not a tenant he has no rights of occupation.

He's been given exclusive possession of the home along with his wife. So he has a right of occupation.

It's irrelevant what the wife says she's not a tenant and has no interest in the property?

That depends - it looks like the OP has bought the home so that it can be used as the matrimonial home and possibly for as long as her daughter wants.

Nowhere has the OP said her daughter is paying rent.

That was the arrangement before marriage.

How do you know how long and how much it costs to evict a tenant compared to how long and how much it would cost to kick out the partner of someone you've allowed to stay in a house for free???

How long is a piece of string?
Solicitors charge £300-£500 per hour.

 

[fisicx]

Solicitors charge £300-£500 per hour.

Some do many don’t. You have made this statement before and the page you linked to shows those rates are for a small subset of solicitors in London

 

[Gyumri]

the page you linked to shows those rates are for a small subset of solicitors in London

You might get it cheaper at £1,000 per day if you use a solicitor in Bognor Regis or Tonypandy - but even so the following rates are about to be increased:

Solicitors' guideline hourly rates

Guideline figures for carrying out a summary assessment of court costs, listed by pay band and grade for different parts of the country.

www.gov.uk

 

[Newchodge]

Presumably the OP's daughter is paying rent.

You don't give advice about a complicated legal issue based on your presumption. Are you mad or just stupid?

 

[Gyumri]

We purchased a house for our daughter

I own it and the idea before her marraige was to let her live there at the same rental value as her her house, but the money would be in a bank account when she wants to move up.

You don't give advice about a complicated legal issue based on your presumption. Are you mad or just stupid?

I might be mad and stupid at the same time rather than it being a question of one or the other, but from what the OP states it can be presumed that the daughter is paying rent.

If she is paying rent and has exclusive possession of the OP's property then the daughter and her new hubby are already tenants on a periodic tenancy.

The next thing would be for the OP to put that in writing and get them both to sign it.

You might consider that mad or stupid but what does your opinion matter if it's not your property and not your daughter?

Your question about whether another contributor may be mad or stupid doesn't really respond in your own words to what the OP is asking.

And there's nothing in the forum rules which says that you have to prove you're sane before posting.

 

[BubbaWY]

You might get it cheaper at £1,000 per day if you use a solicitor in Bognor Regis or Tonypandy - but even so the following rates are about to be increased:

Solicitors' guideline hourly rates

Guideline figures for carrying out a summary assessment of court costs, listed by pay band and grade for different parts of the country.

www.gov.uk

Solicitors fees going up? I need to get my divorce sorted ASAP

 

[Michael Loveridge]

As often happens, the original poster, having set the ball rolling, has disappeared. It may, therefore, be the case that all this discussion is now simply academic.

However, although it isn’t entirely clear that the daughter is paying rent it seems likely that she is, as the OP says that “the idea before her marriage was to let her live there at the same rental value at her house“.

If she is paying rent then she is a tenant, and her occupation is governed by the Housing Act 1988. In the absence of a written tenancy agreement a court would have to infer what the terms of any agreement might be, so it would be sensible to have her and her husband sign a written agreement.

Standard tenancy agreements always contain provisions against allowing the property to be occupied as a home by anyone other than the tenants. Although this obviously wouldn’t prevent visitors being allowed to stay there for a while it would definitely prohibit the family members from moving in to live there permanently.

Nevertheless, the OP, as landlord, would not easily be able to take action directly against the family members to remove them. He would probably need to issue a claim against his daughter and son-in-law for breaching the tenancy agreement. In practical terms, it would probably be easier just to issue her with a section 21 notice to terminate the tenancy, though this is obviously very undesirable where a father is having to evict his own daughter.

If she isn’t paying rent, and never has done, then her and her husband's occupation is simply as a licensee. They can therefore be evicted upon giving reasonable notice, probably a month or so.

The comments about the son-in-law claiming a beneficial interest are a red herring. He could only do so if the daughter owned the house.

If the OP is still about it’s therefore essential that he confirms whether or not he has never received rent from his daughter.

 

[Newchodge]

As often happens, the original poster, having set the ball rolling, has disappeared. It may, therefore, be the case that all this discussion is now simply academic.

However, although it isn’t entirely clear that the daughter is paying rent it seems likely that she is, as the OP says that “the idea before her marriage was to let her live there at the same rental value at her house“.

If she is paying rent then she is a tenant, and her occupation is governed by the Housing Act 1988. In the absence of a written tenancy agreement a court would have to infer what the terms of any agreement might be, so it would be sensible to have her and her husband sign a written agreement.

Standard tenancy agreements always contain provisions against allowing the property to be occupied as a home by anyone other than the tenants. Although this obviously wouldn’t prevent visitors being allowed to stay there for a while it would definitely prohibit the family members from moving in to live there permanently.

Nevertheless, the OP, as landlord, would not easily be able to take action directly against the family members to remove them. He would probably need to issue a claim against his daughter and son-in-law for breaching the tenancy agreement. In practical terms, it would probably be easier just to issue her with a section 21 notice to terminate the tenancy, though this is obviously very undesirable where a father is having to evict his own daughter.

If she isn’t paying rent, and never has done, then her and her husband's occupation is simply as a licensee. They can therefore be evicted upon giving reasonable notice, probably a month or so.

The comments about the son-in-law claiming a beneficial interest are a red herring. He could only do so if the daughter owned the house.

If the OP is still about it’s therefore essential that he confirms whether or not he has never received rent from his daughter.

Tha\t question has been raised more than once. The OP has never answered it.

 

[Gyumri]

The comments about the son-in-law claiming a beneficial interest are a red herring. He could only do so if the daughter owned the house.

There would be nothing to stop the hubby claiming a beneficial interest even if the OP owns the property.

 

[kulture]

There would be nothing to stop the hubby claiming a beneficial interest even if the OP owns the property.

On what basis?

 

[Gyumri]

On what basis?

"I was promised 50% M'Lord "
"It's the matrimonial home and given to us as a wedding gift" etc

The point is the OP has given exclusive possession of her property to her daughter and the hubby to share.

The claim won't succeed but it will take a few years for the claim to be heard -,that's why the OP needs to get the hubby to sign a tenancy agreement to preclude such a claim from being raised. It confirms and limits the rights which either the daughter or hubby can claim.

Aside from that it defines the status of the present occupiers and the basis of their occupation - useful if you have six others of the hubby's family intending to move in.

 

[kulture]

I think that I will stick the @Michael-loveridge answer where he rightly quotes post 7 which strongly implies that rent is paid and further states that the husband cannot claim beneficial ownership.

 

[Gyumri]

That's why I suggested an AST to avoid anyone making life difficult for the OP if rent is being paid.
Otherwise it may look as if the OP has bought a house to serve as the couples matrimonial home to be shared equally between them.

The courts are full of cases where spouses or relatives are claiming shares of houses.

The common intention of the OP appears to be to provide her daughter and new hubby with a matrimonial home which they can call their own.
As such it could be taken into account on a divorce etc. All this can be avoided either with an AST or written periodic tenancy or an agreement acknowledging their rights only as bare licensees, which however is difficult if the OP has granted exclusive possession in return for rent.

 

[ethical PR]

That's why I suggested an AST to avoid anyone making life difficult for the OP if rent is being paid.
Otherwise it may look as if the OP has bought a house to serve as the couples matrimonial home to be shared equally between them.

The courts are full of cases where spouses or relatives are claiming shares of houses.

The common intention of the OP appears to be to provide her daughter and new hubby with a matrimonial home which they can call their own.
As such it could be taken into account on a divorce etc. All this can be avoided either with an AST or written periodic tenancy or an agreement acknowledging their rights only as bare licensees, which however is difficult if the OP has granted exclusive possession in return for rent.

What's your legal background. Your advice seems rather odd.

As already stated an AST is the last thing the OP should consider in this situation.

 

[Gyumri]

As already stated an AST is the last thing the OP should consider in this situation.

It doesn't have to be an AST it could be any contract for a periodic tenancy.

It appears that is what exists anyway if the OP is receiving rent.
What matters is that there is some defined legal basis for the occupancy rather than just allowing people to occupy your property with exclusive possession and then having to evict them as trespassers.

So a written agreement like an AST is not the last thing you do but the first thing.

 

[m4hmo]

Ok, im a landlord, with normal tenants, hmo rooms and properties, my advice is, Do not give her an AST.

What you need is a room/property licence agreement, its something i looked into to try and retain control of 20 bedrooms i rent in Bristol. The main thing being - you can kick someone out straight away if they give you trouble.

To make a licence agreement valid - the person must NOT have exclusive occupation of the property. You need to provide a service - for example sending someone in once a day to empty the bins in the kitchen AND the bedroom.

I REPEAT DO NOT GIVE YOUR DAUGHTER AN AST.

On top of this - i would start planning to put the property in a trust with all sorts of controls. If my daughter did something like that (basically marrying a random), I would be pissed, and take measures to protect. Start looking at bloodline trusts.

 

[Gyumri]

To make a licence agreement valid - the person must NOT have exclusive occupation of the property.

That's exactly what the OP and her husband have! And I can't see the hubby wanting to have the mother-in-law coming around on a regular basis like a glorified char lady cleaning the rooms while he has his feet up in front of the telly.

The main thing being - you can kick someone out.

Not in the UK you can't.

Shelter Legal England - Harassment by a landlord or letting agent - Shelter England

Conduct interfering with occupier’s rights or causing them alarm or distress constitutes harassment and occupiers are protected by law against it.

england.shelter.org.uk

You can evict somebody without a court order if they have an excluded licence - but even then you have to give them reasonable time to pack up and leave.

Shelter Legal England - Excluded occupiers - Shelter England

The main categories of excluded occupiers who can be lawfully evicted without the landlord obtaining a possession order.

england.shelter.org.uk