Here is a question for the Blog Clinic from Hilary who is a protected tenant under the Rent Act 1977.
We have lived in a 3 bedroom house, unfurnished, regulated Rent Act tenancy since 1976. The property has now been inherited, and the new owner intends to sell.
He is offering ‘expenses’ if we choose to move on. Can anyone let me have some advice please? Extremely concerned about our rights and how to react.
The new landlord CANNOT legally evict you against your will. The only way he can do this is if he offers you suitable alternative accommodation. Even then, you don’t necessarily have to accept it – there is a long string of case law on what does and does not constitute ‘suitable’.
But in your case the landlord has just offered you ‘expenses’. I suggest you reject and say you wish to stay where you are. If he tries to move you, then speak to your local housing officer at your Local Authority. If your new landlord tries to evict you without getting a court order, that is harassment which is a criminal offence.
You need to decide whether you want to stay, or whether you would be prepared to move if given sufficient compensation. Tenants have sometimes been able to get quite large payments if the landlord is really keen to get vacant possession.
As I have already said, I doubt whether your landlord could (legally) evict you short of providing somewhere else, suitable, for you to live. (Note by the way that an assured shorthold tenancy cannot be ‘suitable’ as any tenancy offered to you must have the same level of protection that you have now).
If your landlord wants to sell the property he can, but (unless you are prepared to leave) only subject to your tenancy. The fact that he wants to sell does NOT mean that you have to go!
So don’t allow yourselves to be bullied. You are in a very strong position.
Morning Hilary
As Tessa says you are in a very strong position – A couple of points to consider:
1. Does the new owner intend to rent it out?
2. If so is there a reason why you cannot rent it from them?
There are some legal implications of you staying in the property as a tenant of the new owner whilst the sale goes through (Sitting tenant for example) but not insurmountable.
Either way you are in a good position
Regards
Word of warning – DO NOT ILLEGALLY EVICT RENT ACT TENANTS. I ran across one case where the illegally evicted Rent Act tenant sued and obtained a six-figure sum in damages. I think it was based on assessing a monetary difference in value between the security of tenure he’d got now on his new AST compared to under the Rent Acts.
If you do want a Rent Act tenant gone, you may have to buy them out. If you’re the tenant and you don’t mind leaving, a good place to start is 50% the value of the house with vacant possession, or so I’m told.
Absolutely. Hilary you are what is termed a ‘Protected Tenant’, sometimes also known as a ‘regulated Tenant’ or a ‘Rent Act tenant’. They are an increasing rarity as in most cases (apart from death of the orginal tenant where a spouse is left) you cant create them anymore. Protected tenants are eligible for rent control (how rare is that?) and are pretty much un-shiftable unless there is a tenant default, like rent arrears or damage.
I negotiated a buy-out for a protected tenant of just 1 room in about 1992 and she got £20,000 way back then.
as Jim Royle would say “Expenses my arse”.
What JS alludes to is damages calculated under Sections 27 and 28 of the Housing Act 1988. Compensation for loss of a home based on the difference between value of the property with vacant possession and value of sale with tenant and they do run into the 10s of thousands.
Hilary you have rights that today’s tenants can only dream of, on no account walk away on this. Funnily enough, just today I interviewed a couple who did just that. 32 years in residence, the new oweners told them they were moving in on Friday so they obligingly handed the keys back and turned up at our homelessness unit.