Do tenants own the property they rent?

24

Replies

  • edited 15 January 2015 at 5:25PM
    Pixie5740Pixie5740 Forumite
    14.4K Posts
    10,000 Posts Eighth Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 15 January 2015 at 5:25PM
    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.
  • edited 15 January 2015 at 5:14PM
    jjlandlordjjlandlord
    5.1K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    edited 15 January 2015 at 5:14PM
    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.
  • TheCyclingProgrammerTheCyclingProgrammer Forumite
    3.7K Posts
    Seventh Anniversary 1,000 Posts Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭
    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?
  • edited 15 January 2015 at 5:24PM
    G_MG_M Forumite
    52K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 15 January 2015 at 5:24PM
    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.
  • Pixie5740Pixie5740 Forumite
    14.4K Posts
    10,000 Posts Eighth Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.
  • theartfullodgertheartfullodger Forumite
    12.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    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!
  • silvercarsilvercar Forumite, Board Guide
    42.9K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.
    Usually found at a vaccine centre 💉
    I'm a Board Guide on the Debate House Prices & the Economy, House Buying, Renting & Selling, Mortgages and Endowments, In My Home incl DIY, Overseas Holidays & Student boards.
    I volunteer to help get your forum questions answered and keep the forum running smoothly.
    Board guides are not moderators and don't read every post. If you spot an abusive or illegal post then please report it to [email protected]. Any views are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com.
  • Guest101Guest101
    15.8K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.
  • Pixie5740Pixie5740 Forumite
    14.4K Posts
    10,000 Posts Eighth Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.
  • edited 15 January 2015 at 7:53PM
    jjlandlordjjlandlord
    5.1K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    edited 15 January 2015 at 7:53PM
    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.
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides