Can somebody please explain to me what these people were doing?

moneyistooshorttomention

That does sound logical - and I cant see a reason why someone shouldn't be able to have a rented home as a 2nd home (assuming we agree its allowable to have a 2nd home in the first place - which is a whole other discussion).

Maybe there's something laid down in law that "protected tenancies" as a whole are only supposed to apply to a home that is someone's "principal private residence"?? and therefore that these low rents would only apply to a "main home" and not a "second home" iyswim?

Gingernutty

I know this one!


Look up [STRIKE]The Rent Act of 1973[/STRIKE]. The Rent Act of 1977


Will edit later when I have access to a desktop.

kazwookie

How much rent were / are they paying onthe house even though they don't live there.?

Gingernutty

They were paying £850 pcm.

The going rate for a house of that size in that area of Chelsea is about £4000 pcm.

A protected tenancy is a long-term agreement with a private landlord where you pay a reduced amount of rent.

You are likely to get one if your tenancy started before January 15 1989 - and this remains the same even if you signed a new tenancy agreement after that date with the same landlord.

Protected tenants are entitled to a fair rent and there is a maximum rent your landlord can charge. The rent is set by the Valuation Office Agency, and is likely to be below the market rate, especially in central London.

Fair rents can normally be increased once every two years. They can usually only be increased by a certain amount.

A protected tenancy can be ended mutually or can be stopped if it's found that the tenant does not use the home as a primary residence.

Source: Shelter

They were more than likely paying less than the going rate back in the 60s. The rent of such tenancies can only rise by a certain proportion every couple of years, so the rate they paid fell behind the going rate every year.

stator

Judge has made quite a few assumptions.
1 Cheyne Mews looks like a place you could bring up children.

Backdated rent going back only to 2011, is that when the LL bought it on the cheap?

moneyistooshorttomention

Well if Shelter has found a law that states that a protected tenancy can be ended if the house isn't a "primary residence" - then I'm wondering whether the whole issue could have been sorted out quite quickly.

That is - by New Landlord sending them a letter stating its not their "primary residence" (quoting that law) and that New Landlord can prove this if need be, then telling them verbally what proof he has of that fact, then giving them notice.

It's just not at all clear what has been happening here behind the scenes.

I would be interested to read the full story.

pimento

G_M wrote: »

So for all those years the LL was denied the market rent he could have charged if the property had been vacated and he re-let it on an assured Shorthold Tenancy.

BUT, He (the banker owner) got the freehold at a reduced rate because the Clarkes were there under a "statutory tenancy" in Mr Clarke's name, paying a rent far below the market rate, the court heard.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11755647/Banker-tries-to-force-elderly-couple-from-exclusive-London-address-for-financial-gain.html

Innys1

pimento wrote: »

BUT, He (the banker owner) got the freehold at a reduced rate because the Clarkes were there under a "statutory tenancy" in Mr Clarke's name, paying a rent far below the market rate, the court heard.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11755647/Banker-tries-to-force-elderly-couple-from-exclusive-London-address-for-financial-gain.html

Maybe the mug he bought it from should have realised it wasn't a periodic tenancy and evicted them through the Courts like he did. You can't blame the banker for spotting a bargain.

movilogo

Reintroduction of protected tenancy might solve some housing crisis

PasturesNew

movilogo wrote: »

Reintroduction of protected tenancy might solve some housing crisis

Landlords back then were running a different business, with a different mindset. They often owned the house outright, or a major part of it.

Banks lending to BTL LLs are only interested in ASTs because they know that if there's a repo they can get the tenants out quite quickly.

This all changed in about 1996/97. The AST was born and a few landlords spotted that houses were now mortgageable as the banks could get the property back. Before, a LL would have had to have made a business case to get a commercial loan on property.