Does brother have share of house?

PasturesNew

My £1 is on the brother being "just a lodger" of the grandparents, who were tenants.

zzzLazyDaisy

PasturesNew wrote: »

My £1 is on the brother being "just a lodger" of the grandparents, who were tenants.

I agree (well, almost, he was a bare licencee, which is pretty much the same thing). But with both of the g'parents gone, and no tenancy agreement to show who the tenants actually were, he is now either a squatter or a tenant in his own right - depending on how long ago the g'parents died, and how the situation has been handled since then. For example, say the g'parents died three years ago and he was allowed to continue living there, there may be an argument that he has become a tenant by virtue of OP's mum's conduct in agreeing that he can continue to live there (you don't have to pay rent to be a tenant). On the other hand they may have made it clear from the outset that they wanted him out, and he may effectively be a squatter.

Either way it shouldn;t be too difficult to get him out if they go to court, but it might be damaging to family dynamics.

someonesmum_3

Thank you very much for all that info.. Especially about the tax, we will remember to speak to the solicitor about that, but I hope it will help put my mums at ease a little at least. She has tried to be reasonable with him to find a solution, but everything we suggest he disagrees with. It's literally impossible to find a solution with someone who won't even consider any options.

Once again, thank you all.

zzzLazyDaisy

someonesmum wrote: »

It's literally impossible to find a solution with someone who won't even consider any options.

Yes it is. Which means, unfortunately, that you will probably have to go down the court route - although I suppose there is a chance that a solicitor's letter telling him to vacate the property might just swing it?

What does your mum intend to do with the property - move into it? Sell it? (Not just idle curiosity - the answer may be relevant to how you proceed).

someonesmum_3

Unfortunately he has told my mum in no uncertain terms that he wishes to drag it out in court for as long as possible to cause maximum stress and expense for her. I think she is in the mind of trying to get him out as soon as so she can put it on the market and get it off her hands and move on from it all.

Imp

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/renting_and_leasehold/private_tenancies/regulated_tenancies

I am not going to repeat my earlier post, but I will provide the above link to Shelter's web site regarding the type of tenancy (if a tenancy exists) which will have been formed. OP, please read and decide if the criteria apply, and if so, read the section regarding the death of the tenant.

Imp

poppysarah

someonesmum wrote: »

Unfortunately he has told my mum in no uncertain terms that he wishes to drag it out in court for as long as possible to cause maximum stress and expense for her. I think she is in the mind of trying to get him out as soon as so she can put it on the market and get it off her hands and move on from it all.

Does she have evidence of that?

zzzLazyDaisy

Imp wrote: »

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/renting_and_leasehold/private_tenancies/regulated_tenancies

I am not going to repeat my earlier post, but I will provide the above link to Shelter's web site regarding the type of tenancy (if a tenancy exists) which will have been formed. OP, please read and decide if the criteria apply, and if so, read the section regarding the death of the tenant.

Imp

A regulated tenancy cannot apply where no rent is paid. At least in the latter part of the arrangement, after the mortgage was paid off, that seems to have been the case. Even if there was a regulated tenancy, since there was no written agreement, the person paying the rent would have been the tenant (let's say the grandfather) and when he died, the G'mother would have succeeded. If that is right, the brother cannot have succeeded to the tenancy, as to do so he would have to be paying rent, and that's not the case.

But the main thing is that this is not straight forward. Whatever his status, even if it is only as a bare licencee, or even a squatter, the owner does not live in the property and so cannot evict without going through the legal process.

someonesmum_3

Well I was there with my husband when he said it.. Don't know if that'll count as evidence..Imp, I'm confused as to what type of tenancy he would have.. I've gone through the tenancy checker on shelters website and it said he was an excluded occupier, but I don't know if that's right..

zzzLazyDaisy

someonesmum wrote: »

Unfortunately he has told my mum in no uncertain terms that he wishes to drag it out in court for as long as possible to cause maximum stress and expense for her. I think she is in the mind of trying to get him out as soon as so she can put it on the market and get it off her hands and move on from it all.

Well in that case, she definitely needs to evict him as he will almost certainly not cooperate with viewings, and no buyer is going to proceed until he has gone.

It is important NOT to simply change the locks when he is out and leave his belongings on the doorstep as this may well be unlawful eviction, which is a criminal offence. So your mum doesn't have much choice but to go through the court process.

However, assuming that he is not a tenant, then he has no right to remain in the property, and the court process should be fairly quick. There will obviously be a cost involved, especially if you have to get the court bailiffs to evict him (which will be necessary if he refuses to obey the court order to leave). If it gets that far, he will be ordered to pay at least some of the costs - but if he has no money, then he probably won't pay and you can't get blood out of a stone.

One other thing - is the house insured? There is always a possibity that he may cause damage before leaving.