Something for the legal experts to pick apart

Bossypants

Scenario: Parents buy property outright (no mortgage) in their own name and allow son and son's girlfriend to live there (parents live elsewhere). Son and girlfriend pay council tax and utilities (both contributing according to their means), but pay no rent to parents and there is no formal tenancy arrangement between them.

Situation continues for 10 years, at which point parents wish to reclaim the property to sell for their own benefit (i.e. not to give anything to son), and also son and girlfriend break up.

Questions:
1. Can parents simply evict son, or has some sort of tenancy or other right been created in favour of son?

2. Ditto girlfriend, does she have any rights to the property at this point?

3. Is there a better way of doing it, e.g. creating a formal tenancy from the start for a nominal rent?

(Also please no moralising about son or girlfriend 'needing to get a job' and whatnot, obviously these are the bones of the situation and personal factors have been left out.)

Thanks in advance for any help!

booksurr

no contract has been established since neither son nor GF have paid/given any consideration to the parents in respect of occupation of the property

liability for council tax is based on the hierarchy of liability. Any physical occupant (including a squatter) ranks above a non resident owner in terms of who should pay it, so the fact they paid it is irrelevant. Paying for utilities does not give any rights over the property

AnnieO1234

Who paid for the upkeep and maintenance? Were there any alterations made to the property? New boilers etc?

Xxx

AdrianC

There's a little bit more information needed, I think.

Presumably the parents have said to son "We'd like the house back, so can you move out, please?"
And he's digging his heels in?
Or is it the ex-g/f that's digging hers in?

AnotherJoe

"Something for the legal experts to pick apart"

No, it's not. It's something for parents solicitor to deal with.

Kynthia

No rent or rent-in-kind was paid. Therefore it seems they are there on license rather than a tenancy and can be asked to leave. Unless there are other pertinent facts.

davidmcn

Bossypants wrote: »

Is there a better way of doing it, e.g. creating a formal tenancy from the start for a nominal rent?

Thought you said they've already been there for 10 years? Is this about a hypothetical situation 10 years in the future or what?

Anyway, I can't see that they have any rights.

maginot

As others have mentioned, no rent/consideration has been paid so not a tenant.

Even if a tenant they would just be given notice. Rolling tenancy would be 2 months, it is unlikely the house would be sold by then.
Has the son been asked to move out straight away? Seems a bit harsh by the parents.

However harsh or not they would not be entitled to be tenants or have the tenancy backdated (because there wasn't one). A tenancy requires rent to be paid (or other consideration).

Miss_Samantha

There are unlikely to be AST tenants.

Whether they are licensees or (non-AST) tenants the procedure is about the same: Formal notice to quit then possession order in court if they refuse to leave.

If they refuse to leave amicably it would be very worthwhile to let a knowledgeable solicitor deal with it.

Bossypants

Thanks guys, appreciate all who replied! For those who asked, yes this is a hypothetical scenario which the parents are considering. A solicitor will be involved at a later stage if they decide to go ahead but it's always helpful to get some pointers first.