License to stay in house after completion

9wizard9

Morning all - hoping someone can give me a bit of advice or share experiences.

The person buying my house has insisted that they want to complete within a week of exchange, but this doesn't give me time to get into a rental property. I'd asked for four weeks, but they've suggested they grant me a license to stay for a month following completion.

From what I understand this means I pay them rent for a month and stay in the house as their tenant. How does this work as compared to an AST? Do I still get the right to quiet enjoyment (i.e. they won't be round all the time sizing up building work etc)?

Are they able to evict me during the license period (assuming I've paid the rent)?

I'll be asking the solicitor the same questions, but I can't get hold of her at the moment.

Does anyone know of any links where I can read more of the legal side of this arrangement?

Thanks in advance for any help.

clutton_2

trying posting this on www.landlordzone.co.uk under residential lettings - there are very good legal eagles on there

9wizard9

Thanks Clutton - I'll give that a try. Obviously if anyone else has any advice it would be much appreciated.

9wizard9

Apologies for the bump, just wondered if anyone else had any advice or experience of this?

DVardysShadow

9wizard9 wrote: »

Apologies for the bump, just wondered if anyone else had any advice or experience of this?

Take advice from your solicitor. You are unlikely to be evicted within 1 month, as you have to be 2 months in arrears to give grounds for eviction.
Ask buyers for reason. It may be their mortgage offer is due to expire - in which case it might be to your benefit to comply.

Jowo_2

Why don't you just stand firm on completion dates or bring it forward modestly by a week or so. Would you be happy at completion in 2 or 3 weeks?

Presumably your buyers have invested a lot of time and money in the buying process and would rather wait a week or two more than they wish than withdraw from the sale over a modest delay.

Do you even know why it is that they are in a rush? Is it because they'd rather have you run round sorting out accommodation at short notice than bother to do this themselves if they are in the same position?

theartfullodger

They are offering a "License" to try & get everyone to believe it is not a "Tenancy" (which, since 1997, unless very odd all Tenancies are automatically ASTs - Assured Shorthold Tenancies).

"very odd" includes rent less than £250pa or more than £25k. So find a way of agreeing to, say, £50/month, and make sure you pay by bank transfer/get a receipt.

Then as you have an AST unless you are more than 2 months behind with the rent - the Landlord CANNOT get you out in less than 6 months....

Housing Act 1988 Section 20 I think...

20 Assured shorthold tenancies

(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, an assured shorthold tenancy is an assured tenancy—
(a) which is a fixed term tenancy granted for a term certain of not less than six months; and
(b) in respect of which there is no power for the landlord to determine the tenancy at any time earlier than six months from the beginning of the tenancy; and

- is that the right act and section chaps???


Basically I'd want to see the wording of the "License". Regardless of what an agreement describes itself as if it is a tenancy it is a tenancy (there is substantial case-law relating to this..).

Cheers!

Lodger

9wizard9

Thanks both for this advice. Must say I'd been reading the same bit of the housing act and wasn't sure how/whether this 'licence' could easily be different to an AST.

As to why they want to complete so soon, they're not moving in, it's going to be a rental property for them, so I can only assume that they've either got a tenant lined up (though why offer to let me live here then?), or their mortgage offer is time limited.

I'm planning to ask the solicitor/estate agent if they know why such a rush - just seems a bit odd to me. Also plan to ask exactly what rights this licence gives me legally - bit concerned though as to whether a licensed conveyancer will be qualified to give a reliable answer on this point - presumably this isn't standard conveyancing?

Oh well, time for bed now - I'll worry about it in the morning.

theartfullodger

they're not moving in, it's going to be a rental property for them,

- so they understand more about renting law than you or any conveyenacer....

A licensed conveyancer only knows about conveyancing (well, hopefully), renting law (tenancies, licenses etc) is a completetly different game & chances are he'll be (understandably) ignorant...

Cheers!

Lodger

9wizard9

OK - I now have the suggested wording from the conveyancer:
On completion, the Buyer will grant the Seller a Licence to Occupy the property for one calendar month at a rent of £500.00 for the month. Once completion has taken place the Buyer will serve on the Seller a notice to terminate the property upon signing of the Licence.

She has advised that because this is a Licence to Occupy, there is no risk that this will be interpreted as an AST. Not sure what she means here, so I've asked her to clarify:
Q. Given that I am paying rent to the buyer (presumably over £250 per annum), what stops this being interpreted as an Assured Shorthold Tenancy as per para. 3A in Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1988?
A. You are staying in the property under Licence as opposed to a Tenancy Agreement. The Licence is merely letting you use the property for one month at a rent of £500.00. A tenancy agreement is for a minimum of 6 months and can be rolled over month by month provided no notice to vacate has been served.

She has also advised that the new owner would have the right to commence the building works after giving me notice - does anyone know what sort of notice he would have to give and whether I am allowed to refuse permission? Don't really want to end up in a building site for a month just to suit his completion timescales.

To be honest this whole Licence idea just makes me a bit uncomfortable - really would rather have a gap before completion instead, so I only want to agree to it if I'm certain of my legal position.

theartfullodger

She has advised that because this is a Licence to Occupy, there is no risk that this will be interpreted as an AST.

There have been a few court cases where people have written (& both parties signed..) a "Licence to Occupy" but in this case where there would be clear evidence of occupation, of payment (at an agreed rate) etc. any court would decide you both had an AST and the "new" Landlord couldn't get you out for 6 months (Housing Act 1988, Section 20).

In your shoes I'd smile politely, say "Oh, OK", sign the "License" sell the place the wait for the notice to quit & go see a specialist (Shelter or a solicitor wot does this area..).

As regards starting building work you would, having sold, send a letter (two copies, keep another for yourself, the 2 sent from different Post Offices each with proof-of-postage) stating you will only permit visits/inspections/repairs or anything else on condition of your prior written agreed. Your new Landlord then has to respect that and for you to have the "Quiet Enjoyment" of the place.

The conveyancer either doesn't know what they are talking about or is being dishonest. No point pointing this out until you have what you want.

Cheers!


Lodger