Is a tenancy illegal if the landlord does not own the property?
I get asked this sometimes by tenants who get very suspicious if they do a search at the Land Registry and find that their landlord is not given as the owner. Or if they see that the landlord is a joint owner and the other owner is not named on the tenancy agreement.
Frequently they will ask if they can use this as a reason to end the tenancy as their landlord has not ‘acted legally’. Or, optimistically, if they can use this as an excuse not to pay their rent!
Legal landlord
Sadly I have to quash these hopeful arguments. For a start, the fact that the landlord is not named as the owner at the land registry does not mean he has no right to rent the property to you.
For example he may be leasing the property from the owner – not all leases have to be registered at the Land Registry. And there is no reason why just one of joint owners of property should not rent out the property under his sole name – assuming his co-owner does not object.
Tenants can’t challenge their landlord’s right to rent
However even if the co-owner does object, or even if the landlord is a squatter with no right to the property at all, there is nothing his tenant can do about this. This is due to a legal rule which says that if you are a tenant you do not have the right to challenge or question your landlords right to let to you.
Of course if the landlord actually IS a squatter, then you will be at risk of being evicted by the true owner at any time. If this happened then you would have a claim against your landlord for breach of contract, although this would not do you much good as the ‘landlord’ would almost certainly have vanished without trace.
However, if this did not happen and there was nothing to stop you living at the property, then so far as the agreement between you and the squatter landlord is concerned it is binding. So you will still be liable for the rent, and he will be bound by the various regulations for example regarding gas certificates, and keeping the property in repair.
Scams and scammers
Generally if you have been living at the property for a while, it is likely that your landlord is legally entitled to let the property to you. There are a number of scams where criminals offer to rent properties they do not own (or even for properties which do not exist). However here the object is normally to get the rent and deposit up front and the tenant never gets to live in the property.
Largely because of this though, it is no bad thing to do some due diligence on a prospective landlord and property before you sign a tenancy agreement. It will help you avoid the scammers and you will be able to question the landlord about his right to rent the property if your investigations do not show him as the owner. Because once you sign you will be bound by the tenancy whether the landlord owns the property or not.
Have you had any situations where you have rented from people who did not own the property?
Now this is a perrrenial problem in my office that is connected to several local accommodation agents hiding identities of landlord’s whose names come up on other property searches. We do land reg and Experian checks on these properties and there are always several names in the frame.
The agents know enough to satisfy the requirements of a Section 48 address and deposit protection but then create a fog around the letting that becomes impenetrable sometimes, even creating fake management companies independent of the letting agent side, just to add another layer of confusion. This is why I say agents should be regulated and licenced.
The same agents also have many housing association properties on their books – unauthorised sub-lets.
In one case I was dealing with the illegal eviction of a couple. When we checked ownership the flat belonged to Hyde Housing Assoication and was leased by us to use as temporary accommodation for homelessness applicants. The applicant then went to the agent and let it out as his own property. The agent had themselves down on the tenancy agreement as the landlord.
When looking for somewhere to live in this borough when I started to work at my present firm, I found advertised an “ex local authority” flat at a competitive price. Went and had a look and it seemed okay. I almost took it… then the “landlord” told me that often he gets post from the Council there and could I put it to one side to give to him.
I escaped. It was a dodgy sublet. Then I ratted him out to the Council for good measure.
Haha Well done you.
The rules on sub-letting ex council properties (so I understand it) is right to buy under the 1985 Housing Act means they cant sub let for first 3 years – properties bought under the 2004 Act is restricted to first 5 years, unless they have permission of the freeholder).
We had a local agent whose tenant found out he was sub-leting a council flat. When he challenegd hom in the office on Saturday afternoon, the agent reposnded by stabbing him in the heart. Agent now doing life.
Oh to be in South London, now that spring is here!!!!! :)
I have for many years been the landlord of a house owned by my daughter in her sole name. She was a student for whom I bought the house and she let put part of it whilst continuing to live there. It suited her not to be seen as the owner and not to have to deal with rent collection or any other potentially difficult issues. As it happens we have had almost no problems whatsoever. One tenant with money troubles, but all sorted out amicably. About to let out with daughter not resident and wondering whether to use her name or mine, but don’t expect a problem either way. For tax purposes might be more sensible for her to be the landlord going forward, with me having full rights. I am sure my solicitor will tell me what to do though!