Tenancy Rights:

JF100

Hello; I am new to this forum so my issue may well already have been dealt with in the past. If so I apologise. My story is this:
I write on behalf of a church/primary school:
A number of years ago (15+) a school janitor was appointed and "given" a house residence next to the school as part of the appointment. Pay was nominal but rent was not paid either. This was never covered in a contractual agreement. The janitor's wife would also perform some "janitorial" functions, although this has ceased 5-7 years ago. The janitor died perhaps 5 years ago, the widow is elderly and is cared for by her son in the house.
We have written to the widow assuring her she can remain in the house for the rest of her life.
Question: does the son have tenancy rights to the house when his mother does die?
The school has no janitor; the Church has neither the house nor rent; can the Church get the house back on her death and appoint a new school janitor?

Apologies for the length of the saga...

ted1

Tennancy, more like squatters rights.

living in and maintaning a house with the knoweldge of the landlord who isn't collecting rent... for over 12 years.

Victor

OP, you should talk to a solicitor to get things clarified. It might be prudent to have an agreement in place to deal with the situation - to protect both resident and owner. Implementing a modest rent may be useful.

ted1 wrote: »

Tennancy, more like squatters rights.

living in and maintaning a house with the knoweldge of the landlord who isn't collecting rent... for over 12 years.

No, the resident is staying there with the consent of the owner, consent defeats the adverse possession.

odds_on

Victor wrote: »

OP, you should talk to a solicitor to get things clarified. It might be prudent to have an agreement in place to deal with the situation - to protect both resident and owner. Implementing a modest rent may be useful.



No, the resident is staying there with the consent of the owner, consent defeats the adverse possession.

Section 50 of the RTA 2004, provides that, once a Part 4 tenancy has come into being, each multiple tenant in occupation before then and any person accepted by the landlord as tenant after that, benefits from the protection of that Part 4 tenancy once their occupation (whether as tenant or licensee) has lasted a continuous period of 6 months.

It further provides that any lawful licensee of a tenant or multiple tenants may, during the existence of a Part 4 tenancy, request to be allowed to become a tenant and the landlord may not unreasonably refuse such a request — acceptance is to be acknowledged in writing. The rights, restrictions and obligations of a tenant will then apply to the former licensee, except that the Part 4 protection will not apply until the former licensee has completed 6 months of continuous occupation.

JF100

odds_on wrote: »

Section 50 of the RTA 2004, provides that, once a Part 4 tenancy has come into being, each multiple tenant in occupation before then and any person accepted by the landlord as tenant after that, benefits from the protection of that Part 4 tenancy once their occupation (whether as tenant or licensee) has lasted a continuous period of 6 months.

It further provides that any lawful licensee of a tenant or multiple tenants may, during the existence of a Part 4 tenancy, request to be allowed to become a tenant and the landlord may not unreasonably refuse such a request — acceptance is to be acknowledged in writing. The rights, restrictions and obligations of a tenant will then apply to the former licensee, except that the Part 4 protection will not apply until the former licensee has completed 6 months of continuous occupation.

***
Many thanks for the postings and advice.
1. I don't believe Squatter's Rights apply.
2. Maybe a solicitor should become involved.
3. However getting a tenancy agreement in place is not an option as the old lady (perhaps correctly) will not sign anything.
4. I will look up a Part 4 Tenancy (thank you); however no request to become a tenant has been received by the school/church.
5. Is there a definition of "unreasonableness" on the part of a "landlord"? How unreasonable is it to get back that which is owned; with the aim of providing the original required services to a primary school.
6. Surely it is unreasonable on the part of the tenant to expect to be able to live rent-free in the accommodation?
7. Does the Law forbid a landlord from getting his property back, once a certain period has elapsed?

Note: Funding for both the school AND the church in question are major issues. Neither is cash-rich.
***

djimi

On a part 4 tenancy the landlord is entitled to review the rent once in a 12 month period, and can raise the rent in accordance with market value. It wouldnt exactly be playing nice, but if you want them out then it might be an option worth exploring...

handlemaster

JF100 wrote: »

***
Many thanks for the postings and advice.
1. I don't believe Squatter's Rights apply.
2. Maybe a solicitor should become involved.
3. However getting a tenancy agreement in place is not an option as the old lady (perhaps correctly) will not sign anything.
4. I will look up a Part 4 Tenancy (thank you); however no request to become a tenant has been received by the school/church.
5. Is there a definition of "unreasonableness" on the part of a "landlord"? How unreasonable is it to get back that which is owned; with the aim of providing the original required services to a primary school.
6. Surely it is unreasonable on the part of the tenant to expect to be able to live rent-free in the accommodation?
7. Does the Law forbid a landlord from getting his property back, once a certain period has elapsed?

Note: Funding for both the school AND the church in question are major issues. Neither is cash-rich.
***

In alot of cases the property on which the house was builth would have been given free of charge by the local community. With this in mind it wouldn't be that "unresonable" for a non-paying tenant to wish to stay in the property. Would the church be happy to put someone out on the street ? By the sounds of it , I would be guessing this family don't have much money.

JF100

djimi wrote: »

On a part 4 tenancy the landlord is entitled to review the rent once in a 12 month period, and can raise the rent in accordance with market value. It wouldnt exactly be playing nice, but if you want them out then it might be an option worth exploring...

**^
Thanks again for your advice. It is helpful and appreciated.
1. I am not trying to run a little old lady out of her home.
2. I just want to get the house back after she dies.
3. I am astounded that an owner cannot retain rights over his own property.
4. What if we wanted (hypothetically) to sell the property? Could we NOT do so?

Note: the school is non-denominational and the church is non-Catholic...

djimi

One of the clauses in a part 4 tenancy which allows a landlord to break the lease is if they want to sell the property. Others include if they need the place for themselves or a family member, to allow for rennovations or in the case of where the property is no longer fit for purpose (family of 6 living in a two bedroom apartment for example).

Jo King

The Residential Tenancies Act does not apply to this property because it is rent free. The occupants of the house are licensees and can be removed at any time. The elderly woman may have some kind of rights to an estoppel if she has been told she can stay for life. It does not mean there is a gift to her son of a free house for life.