What is the difference between a non-assured AST and a Resident Landlord Agreement

Alnesbourne

I wonder if anyone can tell me the difference between a non-assured short term tenancy and a Resident Landlords Agreement. From what I understand both are suitable to use when renting a self contained annexe adjoined to the landlords residence.

G_M

What country?

If England/Wales, the options are

1) Assured Shorthold Tenancy (if the occupier has exclusive occupation)

2) Lodger Agreement / Excluded Occupier agreement (if the occupier does not have exclusive occupation)

See aso:

LODGERS (Licencees/Excluded Occupiers)
A lodger (broadly) lives in the same property with their resident landlord, and shares facilities. Unlike tenants, lodgers have few rights.

The Housing Act 1988 provides definitions of 'Resident Landlord' and 'same property' (S31 & Schedule 1 (10).

princeofpounds

If the annex is genuinely self-contained, it is quite easy to 'accidentally' award an AST. (Doesn't matter what it is called on the tin, the facts of occupation are what matter)

Alnesbourne

It is in England. The tenant would have exclusive use of the annexe, but not the adjoining landlords house. At the moment there is a door between the landlords part of the house and the annexe but they plan to board this up.


I have been advised that a Resident Landlord Agreement should be used because the tenant and landlord would share water and electricity and the annexe does not have it's own address. A Resident Landlord Agreement makes it easier to evict tenants because they are not entitled to stay for at least 6 months like an AST. I just wasn't sure if the Resident Landlord Agreement in itself is a NON-AST agreement because it not an AST or if a NON-AST agreement was something quite separate.

G_M

By using a Lodger Agreement (Resident Landlord Agreement - call it what you wish) you may persuade the occupant he is a lodger, with limited rights or protection.

However, if push came to dispute, and it went to court, the court would not simply accept whatever title was on the agreement. The judge wuld look at the precise circumstances, and rule it to be one or the other on that basis.

The shared utilities & non-unique address may carry some weight, but more weight would be caried I suspect by the 'exclusive occupation' of the annexe, and the fact that it has its own dedicated entrance. My guess is that a judge would rule it was an AST.

Now, if you provided 'services' included with the rent, that might make a difference. eg weekly cleaning, bed linen changed weekly etc.....

princeofpounds

That would almost certainly be an AST as the tenant has exclusive occupation.

Shared utilities is a weak defence; plenty of rental properties share communal utilities.

Whoever was advising you knows nothing about rental law. Hope it wasn't your agent.

A 'non-AST' is just anything that isn't an AST. It doesn't mean much in itself.

Alnesbourne

It was an agent actually. I am a new agent and trying to understand the in's and outs of tenancy agreements. My first proposed rental is this annexe. My advisors who are established rental agents told me the Resident Landlord Agreement would be appropriate for this accommodation but as I have been reading as much as I can online it is apparent that an AST would be appropriate too. Hence my confusion. At the end of the day if I advise the landlord to go for the Resident Landlord Agreement and a court rules it an AST - would I be liable or my advisors?

princeofpounds

At the end of the day if I advise the landlord to go for the Resident Landlord Agreement and a court rules it an AST - would I be liable or my advisors?

You still haven't understood - the LL CAN'T go for a lodging agreement in the scenario you describe. Whatever it is called it will be an AST as the tenant has exclusive occupation of the annexe.

jjlandlord

In my opinion, you should make sure that there is no ground for argument that this annexe meets the following criterion:
"that the dwelling-house forms part only of a building and, except in a case where the dwelling-house also forms part of a flat, the building is not a purpose-built block of flats". [Housing Act 1988, Schedule 1]

It seems to likely be the case at the moment. I would not board that door, but keep it locked at all time.

If the criterion is met then even if you grant a tenancy (giving the tenant's exclusive possession of the annexe) it won't be an AST.
This would be good for you as it would give less protection to the tenant and you would not have to deal with the deposit protection mess.

Obviously you would want to be reasonably sure because otherwise you could be hit with e.g. a deposit non-protection claim, or whatever else.
Thus, it may be worthwhile to consult a knowledgeable solicitor.

Annie1960

Alnesbourne wrote: »

It was an agent actually. I am a new agent and trying to understand the in's and outs of tenancy agreements. My first proposed rental is this annexe. My advisors who are established rental agents told me the Resident Landlord Agreement would be appropriate for this accommodation but as I have been reading as much as I can online it is apparent that an AST would be appropriate too. Hence my confusion. At the end of the day if I advise the landlord to go for the Resident Landlord Agreement and a court rules it an AST - would I be liable or my advisors?

You are seriously trying to train as a letting agent by reading an online forum?

G_M

Alnesbourne wrote: »

It was an agent actually. I am a new agent and trying to understand the in's and outs of tenancy agreements. My first proposed rental is this annexe. My advisors who are established rental agents told me the Resident Landlord Agreement would be appropriate for this accommodation but as I have been reading as much as I can online it is apparent that an AST would be appropriate too. Hence my confusion. At the end of the day if I advise the landlord to go for the Resident Landlord Agreement and a court rules it an AST - would I be liable or my advisors?

If a landlord employs, and pays, you

1) he would expect you to know what you are doing
2) he would expect to be able to rely on your advice
3) he would be able to sue you if you provide misleading advice for which he is paying

No, of course you cannot pass the buck on to your 'advisers'.

Frankly, I'm horrified.

You are not ready to set up as an agent. Either

1) go and work for a reputable agent and learn what is what. Then start your own business. Or

2) go on a series of training courses, get qualified. Then start your own business.

See

http://www.arla.co.uk/training-courses.aspx

An internet forum like this and/or random googling on the subject, is NOT the way to learn how to be a professional. It's fine for an amateur landlord, and tenants, but for an agent..... :eek:

If you have been reading many threads here, you will have seen what a low opinion many people have of letting agents. You are a classic example of why!