Forum Home → Discussion → Other areas of social welfare law → Thread
Who can grant tenancy?
If X and Y own a property [not yet known if as joint tenants or tenants in common but probably the latter]. X does not live in the property but Y does. Is it possible for just one of them to grant a tenancy to Z or must both owners be party to the tenancy agreement?
Furthermore would a tenancy be legitimate if only between X and Z but Y consents either verbally or in writing[outside of the tenancy agreement]
Further details not yet known, trying to prepare for forthcoming appointment!
Thanks
Not sure I understand the scenario, but questions I would ask: Is the property self-contained? Which party(s) will end up with exclusive possession?
A landlord who is occupying in the same property can probably only grant a licence, not a tenancy. And I don’t think that Y and Z can become joint tenants, because Y can’t be on both sides of the contract.
Not sure I understand the scenario, but questions I would ask: Is the property self-contained? Which party(s) will end up with exclusive possession?
A landlord who is occupying in the same property can probably only grant a licence, not a tenancy. And I don’t think that Y and Z can become joint tenants, because Y can’t be on both sides of the contract.
X and Y are the divorced parents of Z. Y remains in the property whilst X has purported to give a sole tenancy to Z. The occupants are : Y; Z ; and siblings of Z sharing whole house.
All a little unclear as not yet interviewed.
Sorry that no one else has chimed in here, I’m hardly an authority. Anyway, “purports” seems to be an apt term. It strikes me that if Y is still living there, and is part owner, then no one is in any position to be granting a tenancy which overlaps with Y’s occupancy rights. [For context: the general position where an owner A lets to tenant B, is that B might grant a sub-tenancy to C; but A can not let to C while B is still occupying].
If in fact there being a recognisable “tenancy” is a red herring, and all that is required is formalisation of housing costs payments, eg for HB purposes, then that is a whole nother issue.
Final point: if a tenancy has purportedly been granted to someone under 18, seek specialist advice re trusts.
[ Edited: 7 Jul 2011 at 01:46 am by Jon (CANY) ]As far as I’m aware joint owners of freehold property both need to execute any lease which needs to be in writing (i.e. leases of three years or more). Mere verbal consent by one of the owners would invalidate the lease executed by only one of them.
As leases of less than three years don’t have to be in writing then I suppose that as long as both agree then any lease not executed in writing would be valid. However, I’m unsure how a situation where one owner grants a written lease where there is no legal requirement for it to be in writing and where only the verbal consent of the other is given would be treated. I think anyone in the HB department with a half decent knowledge of land law might have problems with it.
Furthermore, if one of the owners also lives in the property and is a close relative then HB will not be paid if they are considered to share the property as defined in Reg 3 of the HB Regs unless they live ‘at arms length’ from each other.
They will need specialist housing advice in the first instance.