We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Sitting tenant from 1970s
Comments
-
doesnt seem fair to me. If you're family own the property you should be able to do as you please imo as long as you treat the tennant correctly and provide adequate notification
Just because you own something, doesn't mean you can do as you want. I could own 500 acres of woodland, but I wouldn't be allowed to cut it down and build houses on it. I've seen houses next to a railway cutting where the owners weren't allowed to build anything in their back gardens. House owners are often prohibited from owning cockerals. In this case, the tenant has a legal interest in the house, and treating the tenant correctly means not removing his rights. These rights arise from a more civilised time than we are living in now.0 -
It sounds like your parents and A own the property as a whole in equal shares, a solicitor should be able to register this as a freehold and then split the flats into leaseholds (if not already).
You could than split the ownership of the leaseholds between A and your parents allowing B to buy out your parents. This will not be straight forward and a number of issues would more than likely be raised, it will also take some time.
Each solicitor involved will be protecting their clients so they will want to make sure that no party involved will lose out financially.
The best advice would be to get your parents and A to seek legal advice before deciding to follow this path, it could end up being very costly.
Good luck and I hope they can come to some sort of agreement.0 -
Just in case there's anyone still reading this board who remembers this thread, I thought I'd return with an update.
The solicitors managed to do something complicated with some deeds of transfer that changed the way the ownership of the property was split between my parents and A. Instead of two equal shares of the property as a whole, it was split so that my parents got 65% of each of the two AST flats, and A got everything else (including the freehold I assume). B was then able to buy my parents' 65% share in flat 1, and a little later also bought their share in flat 2.
So now everyone is happy. B is happy to have bought into the property. A is happy to have given B the opportunity she was looking for. My parents are happy to be rid of the hassle (not least because my mum now has dementia and Parkinsonism and requires 24/7 care so my dad is too busy caring for her to have time for LL responsibilities). My siblings and I are happy not to have the prospect of each inheriting an eighth share of the thing. The tenant is (presumably) happy to be still living in his home.Do you know anyone who's bereaved? Point them to https://www.AtaLoss.org which does for bereavement support what MSE does for financial services, providing links to support organisations relevant to the circumstances of the loss & the local area. (Link permitted by forum team)
Tyre performance in the wet deteriorates rapidly below about 3mm tread - change yours when they get dangerous, not just when they are nearly illegal (1.6mm).
Oh, and wear your seatbelt. My kids are only alive because they were wearing theirs when somebody else was driving in wet weather with worn tyres.
0 -
doesnt seem fair to me. If you're family own the property you should be able to do as you please imo as long as you treat the tennant correctly and provide adequate notification
Your opinion's neither here nor there. You can't give notice to a sitting tenant protected under an old tenancy....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
Glad you got it sorted out.
My OH and his brother had a similar set of circumstances - their grandparents bought a hosue in North London with friends of theirs, left their half to their son, who left it to OH and his brother. Fortunately, the two sons of the grandparents' mates also wanted out, so they sold (with protected tenants in place) in August 2007 for 82% of the market value - a decision that's looking even better in retrospect!...much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
Just in case there's anyone still reading this board who remembers this thread, I thought I'd return with an update.
The solicitors managed to do something complicated with some deeds of transfer that changed the way the ownership of the property was split between my parents and A. Instead of two equal shares of the property as a whole, it was split so that my parents got 65% of each of the two AST flats, and A got everything else (including the freehold I assume). B was then able to buy my parents' 65% share in flat 1, and a little later also bought their share in flat 2.
So now everyone is happy. B is happy to have bought into the property. A is happy to have given B the opportunity she was looking for. My parents are happy to be rid of the hassle (not least because my mum now has dementia and Parkinsonism and requires 24/7 care so my dad is too busy caring for her to have time for LL responsibilities). My siblings and I are happy not to have the prospect of each inheriting an eighth share of the thing. The tenant is (presumably) happy to be still living in his home.
Good News. glad it worked out for all concerned.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.2K Spending & Discounts
- 246.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.2K Life & Family
- 260.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards