My client lives in private rented accommodation and claimed HB to pay the rent. Recently her landlord sold the property and her HB claim stopped. The new landlord has not issued a new tenancy agreement and has stated that he does not want a tenant, wants her to leave but in the meantime he is still demanding rent.

As she was a sitting tenant when the property was sold Im assuming that she cannot be evicted easily, also surely he cannot demand rent without issuing a new tenancy and she cannot claim HB to pay the rent until he has done this?

Reg 12 lists the types of payments that count as "rent" for HB purposes which include items such as "mesne profits", "Use and Occupation", "licence to occupy the Dwelling" etc, etc.

I can't give any advice on the Housing issue (not my field) but if the landlord is charging "rent" in any of its forms then there is no reason why your client can't continue to get HB.

The client's rights to stay in the property will depend on the nature of her original tenancy and whether that has been properly terminated. It is shall we say unusual to sell a property with a sitting tenant these days, and in the past when tenants had much greater protection (under the Rent Acts) it would depress the freehold value by around 50%.

Ariadne may correct this as my knowledge dates back to the nineties when I was involved in property work. Unless the rules have changed, acceptance by a landlord of rent can readily create a tenancy - even if there is nothing in writing. What is more, it used to be the case that it could become an assured tenancy, rather than a shorthold one - thus giving the tenant greater security.

Whether this is relevant in your case may well depend on what - if any - action has been taken to end the tenancy with the landlord who sold.

whilst i'm not a land person at all, i read a lot of cases, and rather think that the tenancy should continue - the purchaser took subject to the tenancy. i think the tenant needs advice from a housing specialist pronto, as a completely separate issue from that of HB...

once that is resolved, the hb position may also become clearer...

He doesnt need to issue a new tenancy, indeed I would be very wary of accepting a new Assured Shorthold Tenancy as he will find it much easier to evict her than with her existing rights as a sitting tenant. An AST would allow him to evict her under mandatory grounds with no reasons given after 6 months. If she is a sitting tenant its very very difficult, usually only on the grounds of rent arrears or disrepair.

A tenancy agreement can take many forms, its valid if its writen on the back of a cigarette packet or a verbal one! I believe the acceptance of rent is creating a tenancy with her legal rights intact. Nor do the HB people require a signed tenancy agreement, I believe there is a Commissioners decision about this but I dont have access to them!


The thing to start off with is to establish what kind of tenant she actually is, a 'sitting tenant' is not someone who was just in the house when it was purchased, but has a whole legal definition!

Am I allowed to put links on here? There is an excellent landlord advice site where people can get lots of advice, doesnt matter if they are Landlords, tenants or advice workers.

"Am I allowed to put links on here? "

well we all do and haven't been told off yet

"but I dont have access to them!"

whyever not!

Cos my place of work wont pay for a rightsnet subscription!

And with reference to the link, its www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums Loads of help and advice for tenancy related stuff!

Or you could look on the private tenancies section of www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_family/housing/private_sector_tenancies.htm (don't know how to turn that orange)
which basically says that a tenancy created after 1997 IS automatically an assured shorthold unless it says it isn't, and will have reverted to a periodic AST and the usual rules about getting people out will apply.

So when did the original tenancy start? Because if it was a LONG time ago the degree of protection may be very high (Rent Act), and if before 1997 may be assured, not assured shorthold as that was the default then.

The original tenancy will bind the landlord until it is lawfully terminated whether or not he accepts the rent. But if he doesn't, how can there be a liability to pay rent?

Housing lawyer please!

See link above, lots of housing lawyers on there!

Trouble with this site, it doesn't give any indication of who runs it so it's impssible to judge how accurate the information is. I notice it doesn't quote any legal sources for the information it posts. Also, it's aimed at landlords not tenants. Solicitors who give housing advice in my experience tend to represent either landlords or tenants but not both.

Commissioners decisions can be found on website www.osscsc.gov.uk, if your employer doesn't allow you internet access either, you could have fun looking them up in your public library or nearest cybercafe.

and of course UT decisions are now being reported on bailii as well....

We get a few of these. There is a need to establish the tenancy agreement with the old landlord.

However, irrispective of that, if the old landlord has started an eviction process (issueing notice, court proceedings etc) then the new landlord can continue the process. If the old landlord has not started an eviction process then the new owner will have to start again giving whatever notice requirement are applicable to the origonal tenancy agrement.

Apart from what Nick has said, which I do not depart from, It essentially boils down to 2 issues, entitlement to HB and security of tenure. The first shouldn’t be problematic, the second probably is.

Most legal interests in land arising prior to the new owner’s registration of title (not the date of purchase) will bind the new owner. Most tenants will be afforded this protection. Consequently the tenant will still be bound to pay rent. Therefore HB should still be payable. If the new owner refused rent then the tenant should still attempt to pay it and if not accepted hold it separate as a sort of trust. Otherwise he will be in breach of his tenancy agreement and can be evicted. Courts have not been blind to this ruse by landlords.

Second, as mentioned above, the type of tenancy needs to be ascertained. Prior to 1996 when a landlord granted a tenancy the position was that if a landlord granted an assured shorthold tenancy he had to serve a separate notice on the tenant indicating that an AST was being granted. Failure to do this meant that the tenant was an assured tenant no matter what the agreement stated. After 1996 the opposite applied.

So if the tenant has an AST then the new owner can re-possess the property on any ground providing he follows the relevant statutory notice procedure. If the tenant is an AT, or a protected tenant under the Rent Acts, then the new owner can only evict if a statutory ground can be made out.

As Ariadne indicates, the client should see a housing specialist.

"Most legal interests in land arising prior to the new owner’s registration of title (not the date of purchase)....."

Just to clarify that. I mean "up until the registration of title" and not "in between" the date of purchase and registration.