Help with unfair eviction asap!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

A tenancy would typically be when a tenant (or group of tenants named on a single lease) has sole and exclusive use of the property.

A license to occupy would typically be used when a tenant does not have sole and exclusive use of the property, and when shared services (cleaner, etc) and/or shared use of communal areas with other licensees is in place.

So residential guest houses, holiday lets, serviced apartments, and some HMO situations are license to occupy. Which has virtually no rights compared to a tenancy.

So some examples....

-Renting a room from a live in landlord (whether they own or lease the property) = LTO.

-Renting a room from a non resident landlord on a non-exclusive use of property basis, for example where other individuals rent other rooms direct from the landlord, there is non-exclusive use of shared facilities, and services such as a cleaner may be provided = LTO.

-Approaching a landlord with a friend to jointly rent a property under a single lease where the two of you have exclusive use of the entire property = tenancy

-Being added to a lease as per above half way through it's term, as a previous flatmate moves out = tenancy.

etc

thesaint

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Just "reasonable" notice. And "reasonable" isn't defined. Maybe 1 hour is "reasonable"?

"Maybe" it is, but I specifically asked about the situation outlined in the opening post. There was no notice, so your 1 hour point is moot.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Guest101 wrote: »

I see your point, and like I said, I don't think your necessarily wrong. But I do think that the circumstances are rare, especially when the ll is not resident. And there's a lock on the door.

A tenancy can be created in law alone. For example I move into a flat, sign nothing. Pay rent and the LL accepts rent. I am a tenant ( maybe not the smartest tenant!).

So whilst I agree about exclusive rights, I am not sure that a cleaner would constitute this.

The theory behind it is interesting tho

I completely agree that a tenancy either is, or isn't, and what it's described as doesn't alter the fact. In the same way that a table isn't a chair, even if it has 4 legs and you can sit on it.

However, the requirements for tenancies have been extensively tested and exclusive occupation is a key factor. The use of cleaners or bed-linen services (or even the provision of "meals") to circumvent exclusive occupation is not uncommon.

The point I was making is that too many posters made assumptions about the OPs tenure without any effort to fully establish his tenure. On the basis of such a rudimentary assumption, advice was given which should have been more carefully considered.

As a rule, the advice given on here tends to be pretty good. I would hate for that quality to fall and for this source to turn into yet another forum where opinion is portrayed as informed when it is anything but. No offence intended.

lighting_up_the_chalice

thesaint wrote: »

"Maybe" it is, but I specifically asked about the situation outlined in the opening post. There was no notice, so your 1 hour point is moot.

Was there no notice? Was notice posted previously? Is there a clause to allow for shorter notice in the contract? Was notice served at the beginning of the contract? Please, provide your evidence for the above. At least tell me that you have prior knowledge before advising a poster to commit a potentially criminal act by forcing entry to a property!!!!!!!!

Guest101

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

A tenancy would typically be when a tenant (or group of tenants named on a single lease) has sole and exclusive use of the property.

A license to occupy would typically be used when a tenant does not have sole and exclusive use of the property, and when shared services (cleaner, etc) and/or shared use of communal areas with other licensees is in place.

So residential guest houses, holiday lets, serviced apartments, and some HMO situations are license to occupy. Which has virtually no rights compared to a tenancy.

So some examples....

-Renting a room from a live in landlord (whether they own or lease the property) = LTO.

-Renting a room from a non resident landlord on a non-exclusive use of property basis, for example where other individuals rent other rooms direct from the landlord, there is non-exclusive use of shared facilities, and services such as a cleaner may be provided = LTO.

-Approaching a landlord with a friend to jointly rent a property under a single lease where the two of you have exclusive use of the entire property = tenancy

-Being added to a lease as per above half way through it's term, as a previous flatmate moves out = tenancy.

etc

They can still have exclusive use of their room and have communal services, kitchen etc. not uncommon HMO and still have tenants rights.

I do see your point, however it's not that simple

Zorz_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

A license to occupy would typically be used when a tenant does not have sole and exclusive use of the property, and when shared services (cleaner, etc) and/or shared use of communal areas with other licensees is in place.
(...)
-Renting a room from a non resident landlord on a non-exclusive use of property basis, for example where other individuals rent other rooms direct from the landlord, there is non-exclusive use of shared facilities, and services such as a cleaner may be provided = LTO.

The highlighted parts make those statements wrong.

If the renter has exclusive possesion of part of the property (namely, a bedroom) and shared use of the common areas (kitchen, bathroom, etc) and there is no provision of those services mentioned by lighting up the chalice (meals, cleaning, laundry) then it's a tenancy.

If the renter has exclusive possesion of part of the property (namely, a bedroom) and shared use of the common areas (kitchen, bathroom, etc) and those services are offered (meals, cleaning, laundry) then he/she is an excluded occupier.

[Deleted User]

When I was in emergency accommodation provided by the council, I was given a licence to occupy. No cleaning services or services of any kind (other than repair) were provided, it was a three bed flat with its own entrance and rent was paid. I paid for heating, council tax etc like you would if you were in a tenancy.


But the council gave me an agreement that if they found me not homeless they could evict me within 2 days. I found a tenancy within that period, but I know someone who didn't. She just had to move out.


So does that mean that the council was doing something illegal? If so, how are they getting away with it? Or is the stated 'rules' to make a licence a licence rather than a tenancy wrong? I am asking this because there is not only the OP on here who could benefit from understanding what makes a licence a licence (and not) but rather a lot of people in emergency accommodation.

FR_262

If the renter has exclusive possesion of part of the property (namely, a bedroom) and shared use of the common areas (kitchen, bathroom, etc) and those services are offered (meals, cleaning, laundry) then he/she is an excluded occupier.[/QUOTE]

Where can I find the legislation for this? Thanks.

BigAunty

FR_262 wrote: »

Where can I find the legislation for this? Thanks.

Here is the Shelter definition of an Excluded Occupier

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/private_renting/private_renting_agreements/excluded_occupiers


I think it originally comes from the Protection from Eviction Act of 1977 which sought to improve the legal process of eviction for tenants but excluded those who lived with their landlords.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/43/contents

thesaint

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Was there no notice? Was notice posted previously? Is there a clause to allow for shorter notice in the contract? Was notice served at the beginning of the contract? Please, provide your evidence for the above.

Please quote where any of the poiunts you make are in the opening post in regards to notice. The OP has stated there was no notice. Are we required to see evidence that no notice was given before advising?

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

least tell me that you have prior knowledge before advising a poster to commit a potentially criminal act by forcing entry to a property!!!!!!!!

This seems to be a question, but you have ended it with numerous exclamation marks.
If it were a question, I would ask you to quote where I advised the OP to force their way back into the property.

You did sound rational at the beginning, but are sounding more and more like a loon with each subsequent post.