One owner wants all the rent the other to share the rent

lightSwitch_3

The background is this: The flat was inherited by two brothers from their parents who I think have passed away. The brother who wants all the rent money has been residing in the flat for 7-8 years and ensured its up keep by spending money on it. The joint owner has not resided in the place during this 7-8 year period but, believes that his brother has gained from living there and, now must share any rent money coming in as it is no longer a place of residence but a business property. (Personally I tend to agree with this point.)

My friend is about to rent the flat from the brother that wants all the rent and is about to sign contracts with him. My friend has had no communication with the other brother that wants the rent split in two. Can my friend go ahead and sign an AST with the brother who wants all the rent and, let him deal with the rent split issue with his brother or can the joint owner create problems for my friend if he doesn't get half the rent?

Is there enough complication here that will adversely affect my friend? For example, my friend pays the rent to one brother then the other knocks on the door and asks for half the rent from my friend.

JayZed

If the brothers are joint owners of the property, as the tenant I would want both their names to be on the tenancy agreement.

mchale

Walk away, could be a pain in the a***, what would happen overs repairs etc

princeofpounds

The brother who wants all the rent is opening himself up to a difficult situation. He can potentially be sued by his own brother, and the tenant for damages if there is any breach of contract. resulting from the former action.

He should not be letting it out without agreement over the status. It's irresponsible and a little bit stupid.

The sums he spent on maintaining the place are dwarfed by the benefit of exclusive occupation he enjoyed as a gift from the other brother.

A judge will look at this, and in the event of a lack of agreement (which seems likely) he will make a judgment based on what the actions of the two parties implied as to their intentions, and failing that he can rely on the criterion of fairness.

I'm not sure how you can get too far away from a 50/50 split to be honest given that.

pinkshoes

As there are two owners, BOTH would have to consent to let the property out, therefore I'm not sure a tenancy agreement would be valid if just signed by one brother.

The rent should be split 50/50 between them!

mlz1413

From your friends point of view has the brother told him all this information? Is the info given in a 'there may be problems ahead' way?

If so I'd steer clear unless as others say you can get both brothers to sign AST and agree a bank account for your friend to pay into and give contact numbers for repairs / problems.

If the info though the grape vine then how do you know the problem isn't already sorted?

With an AST your friend should be allowed to stay to the end of contract, so then the questions are; do they want to stay long term, is the rent cheap, is it worth the potential hassle?

lightSwitch_3

Thanks guys. Interesting answers.

Yes my friend does want to stay there long term, at least 3 years. I can see the joint owner not being happy about losing out for so long on something that he is part owner.

My feeling is, if one owner signs then I don't think the second brother can kick him out by nullifying the AST. However as pointed out here, he may not be allowed to stay for longer than a year.

But I agree, both owners should sign the AST

Catblue

Knowing all this, your friend would be pretty stupid to take up the tenancy.

If the brothers can't agree on this, then they will not be able to agree on the the financial responsibility for repairs when they occur.

The brother who was formerly resident in the house seems like he wishes to screw his own brother over. Makes you wonder how he would treat a mere tenant.

Sounds like the non-resident brother has received no rent in 7 - 8 years and will receive no rent for the next few years either. This brother could decide to come in and remove the boiler or something to sell in lieu of rent.

There are tons of rented houses out there - why does your friend want to pick one where he already KNOWS that there is trouble surrounding it?

silvercar

If there is a resident owner, then the let agreement would be for a lodger not a tenant. This gives far less rights.

lonestar1

What worries me mor eis that the brothe rwho wants all the rent money isnt actually in a position to rent it out without the others consent and that opens upa whole can of worms when its comes to thing like voiding insurance etc

lightSwitch_3

The reason my friend wants to rent this house is because of the proximity to the school for his children, it is affordable, they doesn't have to cross any roads to get to school and his wife can walk to work. It is ideal.

I don't think that this brother is trying to do in the other brother for the hell of it. I think that there may have been a dispute over the inheritance of other properties and the brother that wants to keep all the rent is trying to level things with this house, so it isn't that he is a crook - going about things the wrong way but not a crook.

Regarding repairs, I think he will honour those.

Having read your comments and having analysed the situation I think i will tell my friend to knock it on the head. He is getting in the middle of a family feud and all he wants is a quiet place to raise his children.