Excluded occupier - preparing for the worst

km1500

 you cannot create an AST if the rent is less than 250 pounds a year (outside London)

if I am reading it correctly the person living in the house did not pay any rent at all

https://www.propertyinvestmentproject.co.uk/blog/am-i-a-landlord/

Skiddaw1

For what it is worth, I too get the impression that reading between the lines, the incumbent is as much head in the sand as anything. If I was the OP's relative I'd probably try to keep things as amicable as possible and fall back on the financial incentive approach if he's still reluctant to shove.

ThisIsWeird

Skiddaw1 said:

For what it is worth, I too get the impression that reading between the lines, the incumbent is as much head in the sand as anything. If I was the OP's relative I'd probably try to keep things as amicable as possible and fall back on the financial incentive approach if he's still reluctant to shove.

On the assumption that this builder did a good job of R's house, and is in general a decent bloke, then that would be a nice touch.

But, in no way implied as a bribe or incentive.

Simple, "Sorry, man, I want the house to myself now. It should help you to get assistance from the council if you have technically been made 'homeless', so I can make it clear that this is what's happened. Thanks for looking after the place - I'd like to give you something to help you when you move out..."

Hang on - a BUILDER who cannot afford their own home?! What the!

steve866

theartfullodger said:

Rent does not have to be £££££ - "moneysworth" can be as you described, all bills, repairs,  decoration, gardening etc etc.

Bad idea to have no documented signed agreement..

My view (others may disagree) is that he has an entirely valid AST but as no paperwork any s21 would be invalid.

Suggest bribery.  Were I in tenant's shoes I'd want a lot....

If someone had kindly let you live rent free in a property for 2 years, why would you want a big bribe to move out without any fuss? I understand that is one possible outcome, but I’m not sure every person has bad intentions…

theartfullodger

Same reason landlords like to make a profit.

Artful: Landlord since 2000

steve866

theartfullodger said:

Same reason landlords like to make a profit.

Artful: Landlord since 2000

Can’t argue with that! 

artyboy

theartfullodger said:

Same reason landlords like to make a profit.

Artful: Landlord since 2000

Surely you're not implying that landlords are unprincipled money grabbing chancers???  

Anyway, sorry for the damp squib ending but he popped in today as we were unloading to say he'd got a new place down the road and would be collecting his stuff tomorrow. All's well that ends well...

ThisIsWeird

Phew! Result

RHemmings

km1500 said:

 you cannot create an AST if the rent is less than 250 pounds a year (outside London)

if I am reading it correctly the person living in the house did not pay any rent at all

https://www.propertyinvestmentproject.co.uk/blog/am-i-a-landlord/

But, they were at least supposed to pay for some things. I am not saying I think X is the case or Y is the case, but can an AST be avoided by having £0 rent or close to, and then getting money from the tenant by having other charges such as a £1000pcm service charge? I'm sure that would never work in preventing an AST. In the same way that deposits by another name don't work. 

Great to hear of the result OP. 

km1500

no I agree you can't have 'disguised rent' - the courts have seen it all !