Browse All Tribes or choose a Tribe below:
By signing up I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions
Already a PT member? Log In
Sign Up With Facebook, Twitter, or Google
By signing up, I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions
Already a PT member? Log In
Don't have an account? Sign Up
To reset your password just enter the email address you registered with and we'll send you a link to access a new password.
This article is about a couple who bought a property from a friend and rented it back to him, only to fall foul of old legislation when they tried to evict him.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-LIFE.html
"Couple trying to evict tenant forced to give him cheap rent for LIFE"
Is the Law an a**?!
What would you do if this happened to you?
Wishing this couple best of luck with this battle
Unlikely to be remotely true in that rag
I think the key here is they bought it below market value and the tenant had an expectation of paying below market rate as a result. Although not in writing it created a kind of implied contract which was then breached at the point of intended sale. Unless you have this scenario you shouldn't have a problem. Although as has been said, being in The Mail we may not have the full picture.
Their gentleman agreement (though there was a tenancy agreement in place) created an implied contract and the tenancy agreement was silence on the part of rent increase/ clauses on what would happen if they were to sell the house! Most accidental landlords (like me) or landlords doing a favour for a friend/ family member could easily fall foul of such law if no legal advice is sought when creating a tenancy agreement.
I have certainly learned from this article!
The person lived in the property when it was purchased at below market value - they should have taken legal advice at the time regarding the implications of this. The result does not surprise me.
"The pair were refused permission to appeal and fear the lease could even be passed on to his relatives when he dies."
Why would they NOT confirm the conditions of the lease at the hearing?
I think it is dependent on what relatives he has and other parts of the law which his solicitor used in court.
This is a bit of a non-story imho. It involves Sale and Rent Back which the vast majority of landlords do not undertake.However, it does highlight potential issues with buying below market value which we have highlighted on Property Tribes in the past:BMV Bombshell
Vanessa Warwick Landlord and Co-Founder of PropertyTribes.com **If you have got value from Property Tribes, find out how you can support it in remaining a free to use community resource**
The issue here is probably the promise that was made by the landlord. I am always a little wary of these cases reports but if the house was sold at below market value (as it seems it was) on the basis of a promise that the person could stay as long as it was feasible then there has been an estoppel and the landlord will be forced to make good on that promise. It is feasible for the tenant to remain there for the foreseeable future and so he will be entitled to do so.