Surrendering a lease

CTY

Maybe if you read the original post it would answer your question.

G_M

tim123456789 wrote: »

Am I the only one wondering what possible benefit the OP's mother can get from keeping this secure tenancy if she doesn't actaully need to live there?

tim

Yup. I believe you are.

N79

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

The OP's mother had a stroke and is now living with and being cared for by the OP.

Still, she's on the tenancy agreement and unless the landlord has been watching the place every day are not in a position to know when she last stayed there or whether it is still her permanent home

In which case there is a strong case that succession took place.

However it also means the price for ending the AT will not be that high (the two principle factors being age and health of the T).

Note that now the tenancy is an AT there will be scope for the LL to increase the rent somewhat as the assessment criteria for a rent assessment committee will be an "open market rent" (normally around 80-90% of the real open market rent) instead of the "fair rent" applicable under the original Rent Act Tenancy (which can be as little as 50% of the real open market rent).

So the bottom line is that the LL will probably be able to substantially increase the rent as the succession has weakened the protections available to the new T.

wannahouse

not being judgemental- just wanting to suggest an alternative view:
if your brother and mother have had the benefit of secure tenany at sunstantially reduced rates compared to market value, that is wonderful for them..now that they no longer NEED the flat, do you have to try and get extra money out of who ever owns it? - really?
and just because you can- doesn't mean you have to!
they have had a good deal for many years, that someone else has subsidised, seeing as they couldn't get market rates for the property they owned,if it was me personally, i would be grateful for that, and not try to extort money from a situation...
i know most people would though, and thats one of the things that is wrong with this world.

tim123456789

CTY wrote: »

Maybe if you read the original post it would answer your question.

Nope.

I see nothing in the original question (plus further answers) that answers my point.

The information I have been given is that the official tenants are the brother (who has passed away) and the mother who is living with another relative after having a stroke and is unlikely to ever be fit enough to return.

So all that's currently occupying the property is their belongings.

Why continue with it, I still don't see it?

All that's being achieved is spiting the LL.

tim

G_M

Sigh!

My grandad dies and left me his house in his will.

I live elsewhere and don't need it.

I know a few people (and know OF thousands more) who need a place to live.

But I'm inclined to sell my (newly aquired asset) rather than give it away.

the brother's mother has an asset ( the tenancy) which, like my inherited house, has a value. Why should she not do as I intend to do - sell the asset?

wannahouse

G_M wrote: »

Sigh!

My grandad dies and left me his house in his will.

I live elsewhere and don't need it.

I know a few people (and know OF thousands more) who need a place to live.

But I'm inclined to sell my (newly aquired asset) rather than give it away.

the brother's mother has an asset ( the tenancy) which, like my inherited house, has a value. Why should she not do as I intend to do - sell the asset?

a house a relative owns that is inherited, is very different than a tenancy, as YOU DO NOT OWN THE HOUSE ,SOMEONE ELSE DOES, AND THE ONLY REASON THAT TENANCY IS WORTH ANYTHING, IS BECAUSE THE FAMILY HAVE HAD THE BENEFIT OF CHEAP RENT FOR DECADES, WHILE SOMEONE ELSE who actually does own the building , is desperate to get you them, so THEY can actually make a return on their asset!
so essentially, it gives you an opportunity to basically blackmail someone into giving you something for nothing!

the op has aleady been told that because the mother does not live there full time anyway, then it can't be inherited, but becomes an assured tenancy, although members of the forum seemed to think it was fine to recommend fudging the details and lying about where the mother in law has lived the past two years so that they can continue to stiff the landlord!
gee, what an honest, money grubbing bunch!
there is no price on integrity, and its called stealing when you take something you are not entitled to...

BitterAndTwisted

I ain't blackmail. It's just business. Just like being a landlord is running a business.

No-one is stealing something they are not entitled to. The OP is considering whether it would be possible to negotiate. Like people in business do all the time.

If I had a secure tenancy I wouldn't consider giving it up for nothing. Why should I? That's the free market economy at work. Maggie would be proud

G_M

wannahouse wrote: »

a house a relative owns that is inherited, is very different than a tenancy, as YOU DO NOT OWN THE HOUSE ,SOMEONE ELSE DOES, AND THE ONLY REASON THAT TENANCY IS WORTH ANYTHING, IS BECAUSE THE FAMILY HAVE HAD THE BENEFIT OF CHEAP RENT FOR DECADES, WHILE SOMEONE ELSE who actually does own the building , is desperate to get you them, so THEY can actually make a return on their asset!
so essentially, it gives you an opportunity to basically blackmail someone into giving you something for nothing!

the op has aleady been told that because the mother does not live there full time anyway, then it can't be inherited, but becomes an assured tenancy, although members of the forum seemed to think it was fine to recommend fudging the details and lying about where the mother in law has lived the past two years so that they can continue to stiff the landlord!
gee, what an honest, money grubbing bunch!
there is no price on integrity, and its called stealing when you take something you are not entitled to...

SHOUTING does not make your point any more valid.

Of course property ownership is 'very different than a tenancy' - in some respects. Do you think I'm that dumb?

But in this respect it is identical: they are both assets with a value.

Whether an asset is a house I plan to put on the property market, an old tea cosy I plan to put on ebay, or a Secure Tenancy I plan to offer to the landlord, why should I not realise the value of that asset?

Stealing? Not entitled to? I suggest you read up on a bit of law.......

ILW

Bluntly put, How long do you expect mother to last? Do the landlords know her age?