Licence or tenancy?

G_M

lance84 wrote: »

.........Part of my business plan will also be to offer the property owner an income generation programme, at the same time, they can mitigate their business rates and their lower insurance premiums..........Not only do I intend to fix up these premises to a liveable standard but I will make a concerted effort to make them look nice. ..........

I'm intrigued.

* the Guadians don't pay rent (or rent in kind).

* the property owner gets income generation from....... your company? The Guradians themselves?

* your company incurs expenses fixing up the properties.

Where exactly does the money come from......? Just curious!

[Deleted User]

From what I can see having looked into the large guardian companies the guardians pay rent, albeit a reduced rent. I would assume that's the only money to be made. Then would business council tax have to be paid? Then there's the set up costs, costs in finding guardians, doing the required back ground checks. And not knowing how long the shop will need a guardian.

I think the bigger companies would do this if there was money to be made from it. They don't because there isn't.

CIS

deannatrois wrote: »

From what I can see having looked into the large guardian companies the guardians pay rent, albeit a reduced rent. I would assume that's the only money to be made. Then would business council tax have to be paid? Then there's the set up costs, costs in finding guardians, doing the required back ground checks. And not knowing how long the shop will need a guardian.

I think the bigger companies would do this if there was money to be made from it. They don't because there isn't.

It depends, business rates liability will almost always exist anyway for a non-domestic property (although exemptions can apply in some cases). If however the valuation office feel that residence in the property has become sufficient that part of it has become residential they can apportion a council tax band to part of the property.

silvercar

G_M wrote: »

I'm intrigued.

* the Guadians don't pay rent (or rent in kind).

* the property owner gets income generation from....... your company? The Guradians themselves?

* your company incurs expenses fixing up the properties.

Where exactly does the money come from......? Just curious!

The property owners pay to have their properties occupied rather than empty. This gives them some security that the properties are less likely to be vandalised or burgled. It may also reduce their insurance costs.

The guardians pay a low rent for the benefit of having somewhere to live. As well as living in poor conditions with few tenancy rights, they also have to agree to be in the property overnight.

G_M

silvercar wrote: »

The guardians pay a low rent for the benefit of having somewhere to live. As well as living in poor conditions with few tenancy rights, they also have to agree to be in the property overnight.

Hence the likelihood of an AST arising.

lance84

but say if the Guardians were on a monthly rolling licence agreement, with no date fixed - then as long as all the correct procedures were followed and the licence agreement requirements were all up held, then the Property Guardian Company would be able to evict the Guardian/s after 6 months from when they signed the agreement and moved in. Of course, the Property Guardian Company would need to give reasonable notice (usually 28 days) before filling a court order for possession.

G_M

This is the 2nd time you've responded in this way to the the suggestion that an AST would exist!

If rent is paid, in return for Exclusive Occupation, then the likelihood is that it's a tenancy.

You (the G company) can certainly draw up a document specifying "a monthly rolling licence agreement", but that does not make it a licence.

If it looks like an AST, quacks like an AST, and waddles like an AST, then it is...... an AST! Calling a duck a goose, does not make it a goose.

Making the contract 'monthly rolling' as opposed to a fixed term, just makes it a Contrctual Periodic AST.

Th G Company could evict after 6 months by serving a S21 Notice giving at least 2 months notice and expiring in line with the monthly periods, and complying with all the other aspects of S21 requirements, and then applying to court for possession.

[Deleted User]

When I lived in temporary accommodation, obviously full time (I'd have been in trouble if not staying overnight), it was a licence agreement, and I could have been evicted with 28 days notice.I've seen this happen to people once the council decide they are not unintentionally homeless.

If it was so difficult to decide legally whether they are tenants or licensees if staying overnight in the property, surely the council would get into trouble as well?

I was in my temporary accommodation for 18 months. But the council could have evicted me, supposedly, without even going to court. I was threatened with this when I didn't want to do the awful house swap they offered which was a nightmare situation.

theartfullodger

In dean's case that is COUNCIL temporary accommodation. Very different laws.

What lance is trying to do with his cunning plan is but a fiddle: See what the experts say here...
http://england.shelter.org.uk/legal/security_of_tenure/property_guardians

G_M

theartfullodger wrote: »

http://england.shelter.org.uk/legal/security_of_tenure/property_guardians

I'm sure the OP will find that link enlightening.