Do tenants own the property they rent?

jjlandlord

What did I say about endless argument (with no real value)?

Missko

Error.
Error.

Missko

Error.
Error.

jjlandlord

theartfullodger wrote: »

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

You really have to quote that one in full to avoid any misunderstanding:

Item it is ordanit for the sauftie and fauour of the pure pepil that labouris the grunde that thai and al vthiris that has takyn or sal tak landis in tym to !!! fra lordis and has termes and yeris thereof that suppose the lordis sel or analy thai landis that the takaris sall remayn with thare takis on to the ische of thare termes quhais handis at euir thai landis !!! to for sic lik male as thai tuk thaim of befoir

Edit: Even the forum's 'naughty words filter' is baffled! Apparently it is more au fait with pornhub than with latin or old spelling of English.

Missko

Error.
Error.

theartfullodger

It's obvious, surely:

Where ownership of a property subject to an existing tenancy changes hands, the new owner is bound by the lease and must allow the tenant not only to remain in possession but to do so at the original rent. Thanks to the Act, the tenant has obtained, not only a personal right enforceable against the original landlord, but a real right enforceable against the landlord's singular successor.

&, but possibly out of date now

The Leases Act 1449 (LA 1449) is the second oldest statute still in force and was passed by the old Scottish Parliament to protect rural tenants from being evicted from the land which they were leasing if the landlord sold. Nevertheless, it is of general application. The property can be any heritable property which is capable of being held as a separate tenement, as well as freshwater fishing rights. Whether LA 1449 applies to shooting rights is uncertain as these cannot normally be a separate tenement. As regards rent, this must not be 'illusory' – in other words, effectively non-existent. In relation to duration, there must be a definite ish. A lease with the duration mentioned above – 'so long as the grass growth up and the water runneth down' – would not be protected by LA 1449. If these requirements are satisfied, the tenant can obtain a real right by entering into possession. This may be natural possession, by himself or herself, or civil possession by a representative, such as a sub-tenant. In one case, the carrying out of preliminary agricultural operations before the entry date was held not to amount to possession. But even if it did so amount, it would have been irrelevant as it was before the entry date.

Originally LA 1449 applied to leases of any duration, and it was the only way of conferring real effect on a lease. Then the Registration of Leases (Scotland) Act 1857 allowed long leases to be recorded in the Sasine Register, thereby acquiring real effect. But this was optional: real effect could still be obtained under LA 1449 without recording. Then LR(S)A 1979 provided that registration in the Land Register is now the only way of obtaining a real right.Hence LA 1449 now applies only to short leases. If a long lease is not registered it is not a real right. That does not mean it is not a valid lease, but the common law applies, so that it lacks real effect.

Slàinte mhath!

ruggedtoast

Unfortunately the law has decided that the property belongs to the tenant when the landlord decides it suits him for it to do so, and reverts to belonging to the landlord when it doesn't.

Tenants in England have so few rights and such short tenure it's absurd to imply any level of ownership in their agreements.