Carryon Regardless Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 A family have been in a rental property for 12 months in March. His employer arrange this through an Agency. A portion of rent is deducted from his salary, topped up by the employer and paid to the Agency. I believe irrelevant but the owner has a contract (12 monthly) with the Agency. The employment is terminating by mutual agreement in February. The Agency yesterday (Monday 30th Jan) have 'verbally' given 30 days notice over the phone and stated that the tenancy is a 'Licence to Occupy'. I am unfamiliar with the L to O but don't believe this situation to be so. The T's don't believe they have ever signed a contract but recognising there may be error of memory here I have suggested they request, of the Agency, who they are in contract with and a copy of said contract. It's my preference for those with superior knowledge to show my poor understanding. I believe this to be an AST with the employer, the T's subletting. I would also believe that any notice must be in the form of a S21 or S8. I would also expect in the absence of S13 (notice of rent increase) that rents continue for the same amount to the employer. If it was so easy to create this as a L to O and repossess this way we would all do it. Comments appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caffiend Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 A family have been in a rental property for 12 months in March. His employer arrange this through an Agency. Usual IANAL disclaimer, but my immediate Q is - rather than whatever's in the letting/rental/licensing agreement relating to the property, perhaps there is something in the employment contract about employer-funded accommodation, which will clarify (legally speaking) whether the employee is a licensee rather than an AST? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mortitia Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Was the employer a sole person or a company for the purpose of the let. Mortitia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richlist Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 If you let to a company, the tenancy cannot be an AST, it will be a common-law/contractual tenancy. Housing Act 1988 won't apply. Whether the lettings agent is calling this a licence doesn't really matter.....its not an AST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carryon Regardless Posted January 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Large organisation. I can relate to the organisation not having an AST, but the T's ? Some confusion is that the A says the T's have a L to O with them, but the organisation are paying the rent and I believe guarantee the situation. I have great interest to see agreements if there are any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carryon Regardless Posted February 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 The latest. The A have served a 40 day written notice that requires possession at the 12th March. The T's have a new property available (in theory, as it's occupied and due to be vacated) from the 24th March (coincidentally this is the end of a 12 month tenancy and would be the end of a tenancy period under AST). The A wish to do a check out on the 12th. The LL is now insisting that unless the T's enter into a 2 week agreement and pay a proportion of rent equal to a much higher rent than previous the property or will be available to others from the 13th. An additional deposit is also required. This is effectively a threat of eviction. Under AST there would be no confusion as to the correct legal situation. I find it difficult to believe that the T's don't have protection under the Housing Act 1988 but won't advise from a "I don't think so" stand point. The general style here is to harass the T's with very regular text, phone call and various visits for whatever. I've advised to accommodate but not totally sacrifice privacy. I've said to allow the LL to run her business but not to be afraid of saying no if the 'request' are just not reasonable. Is there a tenancy situation where normal S21 repossession is side stepped, that is there is no need ? Is there still the illegal eviction without a Court Order and Bailiff action ? Things are hotting up so any input appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carryon Regardless Posted February 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Reading this it may be the "Service Occupancy" that would give the LL increased rights, albeit through the A on behalf of the employer (now ex employer). Factsheet 44 - Licences | Factsheets | Letting Factsheets So my limited understanding here is that it may be the Contract of Employment that determines the required notice for this L to O. But as this doesn't qualify as an 'excluded tenancy' the tenancy still has the protection of the PEA 1977 in that only a Court Order can terminate the tenancy unless surrendered ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.