Do tenants own the property they rent?

Pixie5740

What argument? I found some information online that I found useful and thought other forum users might find useful. If you don't think it's useful that's cool but someone else might.

SerialRenter

I do believe it's useful and relevant, and i've forwarded it to a landlord i know, as the last time i saw him he went off on one about how he owned the property and he could change the locks to kick out a tenant if they missed a rent payment. I had to explain illegal eviction and the jail time that comes with it.
Thankfully their better half manages the properties and is more knowledgeable about the law.

jjlandlord

SerialRenter wrote: »

the last time i saw him he went off on one about how he owned the property and he could change the locks to kick out a tenant if they missed a rent payment. I had to explain illegal eviction and the jail time that comes with it.

As said, this is all because the law specifically makes it so, not because of who 'owns' the property during the tenancy.

This kind of discussion on who 'owns' the property is just likely to cause confusion and argument without clarifying much.

IMHO, the only topic for which it might be useful is access to the property during the tenancy. Still the tenant might draw too many conclusions.

I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'll give it a rest.

Missko

Error.
Error.

Missko

Error.
Error.

Guest101

A tenancy is a type of lease.

I think that is clear enough. So unless we are saying that leaseholders are not homeowners, I can't see where the debate is.

You lease your property to another party thereby giving up temporary ownership in exchange for rent.

I'm not saying Tessa in infallible. But she is a legally qualified expert in the field. Certainly she advises clients in that capacity and no doubt represents them.

I agree it is layers of ownership, the onus being on the word ownership.

Missko

Error.
Error.

theartfullodger

Missko wrote: »

Hi Guest,


OMG we NEARLY agree!


Just FYI:
In Scotland we don't have long leases on residential property in the same way you do. So you are either an owner (freehold style) or a tenant (usually with a 1yr rolling lease or something short like that)....

Really?? You've read & understood the Leases Act 1449 then (yes, still in force..)???
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp/1449/6/contents

But let us not forget the great Tommy Sheridan & his abolition of feudal holdings through the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Act 2000 etc etc

Guest101

Missko wrote: »

Hi Guest,


OMG we NEARLY agree!


Just FYI:
In Scotland we don't have long leases on residential property in the same way you do. So you are either an owner (freehold style) or a tenant (usually with a 1yr rolling lease or something short like that).


So we have a much clearer divide about who owns and who doesn't. I still find it weird to talk about someone who has, eg, a 99yr lease as an "owner".


I think we need to distinguish between:
freehold - I own this and can sell to a new LL.
leasehold - tenants own this and can sublet (with permission or whatever).
*bricks and mortar* - I own this. Tenants have rights to use, enjoyment, sole possession, not to be chucked out without due process.


Or do you disagree re the bricks and mortar? I think what inflames LLs is that someone reckons they own the actual building!!

Ok, England ( which is what I know ) - let's exclude leaseholders for the moment.

Freehold home. Owned by a LL, is leased to a tenant. That lease in my opinion temporarily hands over ownership of the property to the tenant in exchange for rent. The freehold title remains with the original owner. The lease is the tenancy agreement.

The rights of the leaseholder are in part based on statute and in part on tenancy agreement.


Now let's put leaseholders back in - the majority of flats on the uk, a lot of which are purpose built as rental investment properties.

The freeholder owns the building. The leaseholder owns the the lease for their flat. They rent it out. - why are they owners? The tenant has purchased their rights to the property.

There are two contracts in play. The LL has a contract with the freeholder. The tenant has a contract with the LL. Hence why the tenant is not responsible for repairs ( this section is covered to some degree by statute ).

The leaseholder could rent out all 99 years of the lease if they choose. Or assign their lease in bulk , ie sell.

So whilst we won't agree on the 1st example.

I think we can on the 2nd?

Missko

Error.
Error.