Do tenants own the property they rent?

Pixie5740

TheCyclingProgrammer wrote: »

Not in any way that most people would recognise.

It's the law of the land though whether you think that most people would recognise it or not.


It's not a case of being controversial, it's a case of trying to clear something up. One post made on another thread compared a tenancy with lending someone a book which isn't the same thing at all.

jjlandlord

Pixie5740 wrote: »

That's your opinion which of course you are entitled to have and to express but it's not what the law says.

It depends on what one means by 'owner'... And as such this is an endless debate.

In any case, I'm not sure what is the point of the argument.

TheCyclingProgrammer

Pixie5740 wrote: »

It's the law of the land though whether you think that most people would recognise it or not.

What's that got to do with anything? Are we in court?

In the course of normal discussion, when discussing ownership of a property, if you are talking about ownership of a house most people would fairly assume you are talking about the freehold. If a flat, most people would assume you mean the leasehold.

So if you tell a landlord letting out a house they own that their tenant actually "owns" it they would rightly object to that. The tenant has a lease/exclusive possession or whatever but they do not own the freehold and that is what most people would assume you are talking about.

Why use ambiguous/contentious wording when it can be explained in a far simpler, more understandable manner, other than to be controversial or provoke a reaction?

G_M

It's really very simple.

* A freeholder owns the freehold to a piece of land/property.

* A leaseholder owns the lease to a piece of land/property.

* A tenant also owns a lease to a piece of land/property, but a different kind of lease.

They are all 'owners' of something, but what they own varies.

ps to onamissionEU:

So for me, the owner of a property is the person on the deeds who purchased the building, regardless of a lease or tenant!

If you check the Title Deeds at the Land Registry for a block of flats, you will find 'Deeds' for the lease on each flat, as well as deeds for the freehold to the building.

Both the leaseholder and freeholder have Deeds. But they own different things.

Pixie5740

G_M wrote: »

It's really very simple.

* A freeholder owns the freehold to a piece of land/property.

* A leaseholder owns the lease to a piece of land/property.

* A tenant also owns a lease to a piece of land/property, but a different kind of lease.

They are all 'owners' of something, but what they own varies.

ps to onamissionEU:
If you check the Title Deeds at the Land Registry for a block of flats, you will find 'Deeds' for the lease on each flat, as well as deeds for the freehold to the building.

Both the leaseholder and freeholder have Deeds. But they own different things.

And Betty own the land.

theartfullodger

Pixie5740 wrote: »

And Betty own the land.

Betty does not own the land: Or much of what people think is "hers" (eg Royal Art collection...). The monarch may be seen as the "owner" but purely as the figurehead for these state properties...

Most of what many think is hers is our, state, property..

And Air-miles Andy has a 75-year, rent-free, lease on a huge mansion plus cottages, land etc in Windsor Great Park: Which he can pass on to his two kids who too can "enjoy" that rent-free life..

For more info see...
http://republic.org.uk/

Cheers!

silvercar

Guest101 wrote: »

But the tenant or leaseholder can sell their lease. So they are owners for that time.

AST Tenants can't sell their lease, they don't have the right to reassign.

Guest101

silvercar wrote: »

AST Tenants can't sell their lease, they don't have the right to reassign.

Normally the contract forbids this, but actually if it doesn't they absolutely can.

Pixie5740

TheCyclingProgrammer wrote: »

What's that got to do with anything? Are we in court?

In the course of normal discussion, when discussing ownership of a property, if you are talking about ownership of a house most people would fairly assume you are talking about the freehold. If a flat, most people would assume you mean the leasehold.

So if you tell a landlord letting out a house they own that their tenant actually "owns" it they would rightly object to that. The tenant has a lease/exclusive possession or whatever but they do not own the freehold and that is what most people would assume you are talking about.

Why use ambiguous/contentious wording when it can be explained in a far simpler, more understandable manner, other than to be controversial or provoke a reaction?

I'm looking at it from a legal perspective hence the links to Landlord Law Blog to explanations on ownership given by a legal expert. I wasn't looking for your definition of ownership or how you would describe ownership to your friends.

Perhaps if more landlords understood the concept then they would understand the tenant's right to exclusive use of the property, why as a landlord they cannot end a tenancy, and why they shouldn't illegally evict tenants even if the git has stopped paying the rent.

jjlandlord

As per my previous post: And the point of all of this argument is?

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Perhaps if more landlords understood the concept then they would understand the tenant's right to exclusive use of the property, why as a landlord they cannot end a tenancy, and why they shouldn't illegally evict tenants even if the git has stopped paying the rent.

There's no need to argue on who 'owns' the property to deal with these issues. Especially since some of them are the way they are specifically because relevant tenancy law says so, not because of whomever 'owns' the property.

Exclusive possession: That's the basis for and definition of a tenancy.
Why landlords cannot end a tenancy: This is the case only for assured tenancies because the law says so.
'illegally' evict tenants: By definition this is because the law says so. Especially the law says that a residential tenant or ex-tenant occupying the property cannot be evicted without a court order.