"Occupation rent" query

Pricivius

Apologies if this is covered elsewhere on the forum - I did do a search and couldn't find anything...

My query involves two brothers inheriting a property from a deceased parent on a 50/50 basis. The 4-bed property is empty following the death and there is no mortgage. The brothers agree to sell the property to release their inheritance.

One brother was renting a property with his child, so he ended his rental agreement and moved into the house in order to ensure it is not unoccupied, to maintain it, carry out some minor repairs and DIY, carry on the gardening and generally keep it presentable for any viewings. He is also the contact with the estate agents, handles any viewings and promotes the sale.

The other brother moved into the house for a couple of weeks initially to sort things out and has since moved back to his family home (with wife and child). He pops back to the house and stays for a few nights every few weeks.

The second brother (who is not in occupation) is now demanding rent off the first brother. Can he legally do so?

Whilst I appreciate that morally/ethically, people may expect one brother to pay rent for living in the property whilst the other does not, is there any legal basis for this?

My thoughts are that this is an occupation rent scenario under sections 12 and 13 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 and that as the second brother has not been excluded from the property, he is not entitled to any compensation. He can exercise his right to live in the property at any time, unlike the situations in Stack v Dowden and Dennis v McDonald. I appreciate that this would be different if the intention was not to sell the property, but the first brother is definitely treating this as a short term option whilst he actively sells the property.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

sequence

I'm not a lawyer but I can't see how either one of you can owe the other rent unless you deprive the other of the house or change the locks for example). You both should have the right to live there, since you both own half.

Pricivius

Thanks, sequence.

I agree - if I was wanting to live in the house to the exclusion of my brother, I could understand that he would be entitled to some sort of rent, but as this is genuinely not my intention and he is free to move in if he wants to, I owe him nothing. I think it would also be different if I was viewing this as a long term plan as I appreciate he wants his money out, but I'm not.

cattie

As an occupied property always presents better to prospective buyers, your brother should be pleased that you are living there and able to maintain the property. During the winter months an empty property can quickly deteriorate, plus be a target for vandals or squatters. I personally feel that he is being unreasonable expecting rent when the situation is only temporary until the house is sold.

DVardysShadow

Do your research and find out the price of a house sitter. Like £30/day.

Tell brother that if he wants to go down that road, you are happy to pay him half rent if he pays you half the house sitting fee.