Here is a question to the blog clinic ‘fast track’ from Kevin (not his real name) who is a landlord.
My parents gifted me their house in 2012 and at the time there was a tenancy agreement setup as advised for a fixed period of 10 years for a nominal rent of £10.00 a year. This was only done so they could live there without worry and do so for as long as they wished.
They both passed away recently. Now my brother is in a dispute with me they saying the tenancy has not ended and it belongs to the estate under the will and that I as an executor should rent the house out at commercial rent and give him 50% of the share. There is no mention of the tenancy it in the will.
Could you please explain as I have read in one of your blogs that a fixed term tenancy does not end at death and whether this would this apply here.
I have also read that If a fixed term tenancy and the fixed term has not expired, the executors will arrange for it to be passed onto whoever is left the tenancy in the will. Yet there is no mention of it in the will as my parents knew the real purpose of the tenancy.
Any advice would be appreciated.
Answer
I should start by saying that I am not and never have been a trust and probate lawyer and I think you should consult one about the situation. Note also that I do not do tax law and cannot, therefore, comment on any tax implications.
However. This is how I see it.
Is it a tenancy and if so what type of tenancy?
You are the owner of the house and the tenancy was between you and your parents. As the rent was £10 per year, it would not have been an assured shorthold tenancy. This is because in Schedule 1 of the Housing Act 1988 tenancies with a rent of under £250 are excluded from protection under the act and it will, therefore, be an unregulated ‘common law’ tenancy.
Sometimes, when property is let in family situations, there is no legal tenancy at all – as a court will hold that there was ‘no intention to create legal relations’. It is difficult to say whether or not this will apply in your case as it appears that a formal tenancy agreement was drawn up under advice.
You don’t say whose advice it was or give any details of what is set out in that tenancy agreement. You need to get hold of it and read it, as it may say something about the intentions of the agreement and what should happen after the death of the tenants.
If it is not an actual tenancy (because as a family arrangement there is no intention to create legal relations), then the agreement will probably have ended on the death of your parents. However, the existence of a written document indicates that it is probably a legal tenancy.
If it is a tenancy – what happens to it now?
Assuming it is a tenancy and the tenancy agreement is unhelpful, then the tenancy will continue (your brother is right there) and is owned at the moment by the executors. It will then pass to whoever is the residual beneficiary under your parent’s estate.
If the tenancy is not ended by the executors, the residual beneficiary will (when the tenancy is passed to him or her) be entitled to live in the property for the remainder of the 10-year term at an annual rent of £10. It is possible that they may also be able to sublet it at a commercial rent – but that will depend on the terms of the tenancy agreement.
A few comments
I cannot see any justification for your brother’s request that you re-let the property at a commercial rent. The property is yours. It is only the £10 pa tenancy which belongs to the estate.
It may be that your brother is expecting you as executor to sublet the property to get an income for the estate. Again this will depend on the terms of the tenancy. My feeling is that as the sole purpose of the tenancy was to give security for your parents in their final years, this is probably not something which can be done. But this will depend on what the tenancy agreement actually says.
A reason why the estate may consider it unwise to do this (even if the terms of the tenancy permit) is because the estate will be liable to you as landlord for any repair work.
This is because, as the fixed term of the tenancy is more than seven years, the tenant (ie the estate) is liable to you (as landlord) for all repair work. This is because the statutory repairing covenants under s11 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 that apply to most short term tenancy agreements will not apply to a tenancy with a fixed term of 7 or more years.
If (for example) the property is in a poor state of repair, and you (as landlord) agree to waive this, this could be justification for ending the tenancy now. However, the estate could incur a considerable liability to you as landlord if sub-tenants are taken on who cause damage to the property.
Once the fixed term has ended, you as the landlord will be able to recover possession.
Can you agree with yourself to end the tenancy now?
If there is no-one who wishes to live in the property under the £10 pa tenancy (presumably your brother has his own home) then I don’t see why you shouldn’t agree (as the executor) with yourself (as the landlord) to end the tenancy now.
But whether you are entitled to do that if one of the beneficiaries objects is entering into the sphere of trust and probate law and so I will leave it to any trust and probate lawyers reading this to answer that question.
For once I can help, in agency terms at least, in terms of an Estate and what they can do in terms of the tenancy which reverts to them if the Landlord is deceased (in this case you seem to own the house so I don’t see the issue).
Anyway the one key thing an Estate cannot do is instruct an agent to re-let a property and create a new tenancy agreement. An Estate does not have the authority to create an interest in land in this way. They can assign the current agreement, usually to a family member, but I have never seen this done.
So any Landlord contract dies with the passing of the final sole Landlord. So agents need to be EXTREMELY careful not to let anyone claiming to be next of kin into the property, and above all not to pay rent anywhere except into the Estate and above all not to pay out any contractors bills etc (as they will be liable for losses to the Estate)
Thank you for your comment.
Are you saying that estate cannot sublet the property as well and what they can do is only assign the current agreement to someone.
Thank you all for your responses for clarification please find some further information.
1. The agreement was suggested by a professional solicitor’s firm at the time when the house was gifted to me and in the solicitors notes it says that the solicitor suggested that there should be a formal agreement between the parents and the son so as the parents could remain in occupation of the property as long as they wished.
2. There was never any payment of the rent received.
3. This agreement was for a fixed period of 10 years at £10 a year. I have read that any fixed term agreement needs to be registered under s27 Land Registration Act 2002. The requirement to register is mandatory under s27. The lease was not registered against my title at HM Land Registry.
4. The agreement says in section 9 “Not to assign or sublet the Property and not to part with possession of the Property in any other way without the Landlord’s consent (but the Landlord will not unreasonably refuse or delay dealing with a request for consent to in assignment or subletting)”. In my opinion given the purpose for the agreement I believe as the owner of the property I could to refuse subletting at a commercial rate.
5. Furthermore, I have checked the tenancy agreement it is also not dated and does have start and end date. There was no intention to create a legal tenancy it was only just as Theresa writes a family arrangement.
6. The tenancy agreement was from https://www.oyezstore.co.uk/forms/templates/01001.pdf
Any further thoughts comments would be highly appreciated.
They proper way for this to have been dealt with to ensure that Kevin’s parents were protected (and incidentally that Kevin was protected once his parents had passed on) was for Kevin to have granted his parents a tenancy, the basic terms of which should have been:
· A term long enough to ensure they both had a home for life
· A nominal rent
· An absolute ban on assigning, subletting and any other dealing
· A mutual right to break exercisable by the parents at any time and by Kevin after the death of the survivor of his parents
If that had been done Kevin’s parents would have been secure and Kevin would now be in no doubt that he could end the tenancy.
Given the situation, there can be no doubt that Kevin and his parents intended to enter into legal relations – that is certainly what the solicitor must have meant they should do. Just because the parties are related does not mean there is a “family arrangement”. If you complete a form headed “tenancy agreement” then you intend to enter into legal relations.
The question is though whether the tenancy intended was in fact granted and, if it was not, whether there was a tenancy at all or an agreement to create a tenancy.
There are two points suggesting that a ten year tenancy may not have been granted. The first is that no start or end date was specified. It is an essential requirement of a tenancy that its duration is certain. The Land Registry would certainly not have accepted the lease for registration. Had there been a dispute, a court would probably have been prepared to rectify the document and supply both a start and end date.
The second is that if the document was executed as printed on the Oyez form it will not have been executed as a deed. That means that it will have failed to create a legal estate (another reason for the Land Registry to decline to register it) though it may operate as an agreement to grant a lease. Apart from that, a tenancy may have arisen by the fact of the parents being in occupation and it having been agreed that they had a tenancy.
All in all, the situation is far from clear cut. Kevin’s position is tricky as he is both landlord and (in his capacity as executor) tenant. That means any action he takes has to be in the interest of the beneficiaries. In the absence of his coming to an agreement with his brother and any other interested beneficiaries (which ought to be properly documented) it is therefore crucial that it is established precisely what the arrangement between Kevin and his parents was. That may involve asking counsel.
Not only the lease should have been registered, but it had to be created by deed.
Hi Romain.
As neither was the case where do i stand with the tenancy?
In view of Kevin’s further information, and the fact that the agreement was not dated or properly executed, things are a bit confusing. I think it would be best to put the administration of the estate in the hands of a reputable firm of solicitors and I agree with Lawcruncher that maybe Counsels opinion should be taken.
For what it’s worth, my view is that Keven should be entitled to end the tenancy. Its purpose was clearly to allow his parents to stay in the property during their lifetime. They clearly wanted Kevin to have the benefit of the property after their death – that is after all why they gifted it to him in the first place.
If they had intended the brother to have any benefit from the property they could have gifted it to him jointly with Kevin – the fact that they did not indicates to me that subletting the property now at a market rent so the brother can get an income from it would not be carrying out their wishes.
Incidentally Kevin – who was the residual beneficiary under their will?
Hi Tessa,
Thank you for all your points.
As you suggest I have previously had some advice regarding the administration of the estate from a reputable firm of solicitors and they have said exactly the same as you – that the purpose of the tenancy was for my parents to live there without worry which has now ended.
The concern I have is whether the brother has any legal claim because of the written tenancy and whether it is valid or not. He says that the fixed term has not ended and that I should sublet the house according to the tenancy section 9 which says “Not to assign or sublet the Property and not to part with possession of the Property in any other way without the Landlord’s consent but the Landlord will not unreasonably refuse or delay dealing with a request for consent to in assignment or subletting)”.
Furthermore, as you have previously written that statutory repairing covenants under s11 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 will not apply. I would further add that the property is in a poor state of repair.
Any reference/advice on this would be appreciated who would be responsible to get the property repaired?
The residual beneficiary under the will are both us. My parents had some savings which they wanted the grandchildren to have.
Also Any suggestions on how I go about getting counsels opinion?
I always recommend Anthony Gold solicitors who have a good probate dept http://anthonygold.co.uk/services/property-services-and-estates/wills-trusts-and-estates They can advise you on the correct course of action and take further advice from a barrister / Counsel if they think it appropriate.
My feeling however, is that if this matter were to go to court your brother would not have a case. Had your parents wanted him to benefit from the property in this way they could have gifted the property to both of you. Instead they gifted it to you. The tenancy was just a device to give them security in the property.
Thanks for the comments and recommendation.
“As neither was the case where do i stand with the tenancy?”
If the lease was not executed as a deed it was void to create a legal estate. That means it was incacapable of being registered. The document may have taken effect as an agreement for lease and if it did your parents had an equitable tenancy. There has to be doubt because the term of the tenancy was not specified.
You being executor but apparently not the sole residuary beneficiary complicates things. All in all the whole thing is a complete muddle.
Hi,
Thank you for your contribution and yes i agree it is a muddle. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
If the intention was that your parents should give you the property but retain the right to live their for the rest of their lives but otherwise without any complications, it is not clear why the solicitor involved did not see to it that that was what happened. Was he retained by you or your parents, or just the “family solicitor” who dealt with the matter without it necessarily being clearly established who he was acting for? It was not difficult to set the thing up properly and normally one would have expected the solicitor to have drafted the lease as well as the deed of gift and seen to any necessary registration.
The real question here is not so much one of the law of succession or landlord and tenant law, but of equity. I see two ways of approaching it. The first is to ask what the intention was as communicated to the solicitor and then give effect to that intention. The second is to say that documents were executed and it is necessary to look at them and extract the intention from the documents and then give effect to that intention; if the documents show an intention to grant a ten year lease without a right to break should the unintentional lack of formality (no deed and no registration) be allowed to frustrate that intention?
If the job had been done correctly you would now have the property free from any tenancy. On the other hand if you are arguing that now there is no tenancy you are also effectively arguing that there was never a tenancy which clearly was never the intention; having signed a tenancy agreement without a right to break it is difficult, though not entirely impossible, to argue successfully that one was to be implied.
You need to try an reach an agreement with your brother as otherwise you are in danger of incurring legal costs which will exceed any rent you might pay your brother. The legal points here are a bit tricky and if agreement is not reached soon I think you will need to take counsel’s opinion. If it proves to be in your favour it will hopefully go a long way to persuade your brother to forget the whole thing. You must though make sure that the case to counsel is drafted by someone who fully understands the issues as counsel’s opinion is only as good as the case put to him.
Thank you for your input.
The intentions of my parents was for me have the house but wanted to live in the house as long as they could. They never had any intention of having a tenancy at all.
When we told the solicitor that my parents wanted to continue to stay in the house after the gift of the property it was he who then suggested that there should be a tenancy agreement allowing the parents to remain in the property as long as they wished. This has also been written in the solicitor’s notes which I have.
He further had to chase my parents to actually sign it as they were not really interested in having a tenancy at all which they eventually after 2 months.
This was the reason why we never checked the agreement as to whether it was done properly (dates etc…).
In hindsight as you say the solicitor should have put something in the tenancy agreement to confirm all this (but I don’t know if he legally could have).
“Furthermore, as you have previously written that statutory repairing covenants under s11 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 will not apply. ”
I can’t find where this was written. Why will the s11 provisions not apply to this tenancy whatever its status turns out to be?
s13 of the Law of Property Act 1985 states:
Section 11 (repairing obligations) applies to a lease of a dwelling-house granted on or after 24th October 1961 for a term of less than seven years.
If the tenancy was, as we were told, for a term of 10 years, then the repairing obligations under s11 could not therefore apply.
If the lease was, as it was not signed as a deed, an equitable lease rather than a legal one, then it is arguable that s13 will still apply as the definition of lease in s16 says
“lessee” and “lessor” mean, respectively, the person for the time being entitled to the term of a lease and to the reversion expectant on it.
As someone with an equitable lease is generally entitled to have this converted to a legal one.
But maybe this is one of the things which, if this situation is put before Counsel, he or she could be asked to comment on.
Hi Keven,
Sympathetic to your situation. A fairly complex situation.
It’s apparent that this is not a short hold tenancy and the matter is whether it is a lease agreement.
As I see it the courts are unlikely to regard this as a lease and even so I cannot see the subletting being enforceable.
My reasoning is that the agreement is not registered (do you know why it was not registered), is incomplete, is missing dates and no rent has been paid.
In the unlikely event the courts decide that it is a lease based on the fact that there was intention to draw up an agreement then surely the same argument would apply which based intentions between you and your parents was that the agreement was only for them to reside in the property (which again you may have to prove).
Furthermore on the basis that you are only getting a nominal rent I believe it would be within your rights to refuse subletting according to the clause you mentioned. The nominal rent would not even cover the cost of drawing up a basic agreement never mind managing the lease, tenants, auditing etc. The nominal rental should also help support you in showing the intention of the agreement.
Hope this helps.
Thank you for your contribution. Your points are very interesting.
The rental being only £10 a year on the tenancy shows that the intention of the tenancy was not to be a commercial tenancy at all but merely an agreement for my parents to live there.
Wouldn’t the courts would look at what the purpose and the intention of the tenancy was and decide on that basis.
“The rental being only £10 a year on the tenancy shows that the intention of the tenancy was not to be a commercial tenancy at all but merely an agreement for my parents to live there.
“Wouldn’t the courts would look at what the purpose and the intention of the tenancy was and decide on that basis.”
The fact that the rent is nominal is really neither here nor there. The question (which would be the only question if the lease had been properly executed and registered) is: Did the parties intend the tenancy be what the lease says it is, i.e. a tenancy for ten years, no more and no less?
What you have is a “we meant to do x but instead did y” problem. If parties get together and agree something but sign documents which say something else, a party who wants to change the documents has to persuade the court that the documentation did not reflect what was agreed. It can be an uphill task because the court’s starting point is that during discussions the original proposals may change and that the policy has to be that the documentation is the primary evidence of what was agreed. If that were not the case all agreements would be liable to be varied and no one would know where they were. However, it is recognised that genuine mistakes happen and if it can be shown that the documentation does not reflect what was in the parties’ minds immediately before it was signed the court will order rectification.
If a mutual right to break was never discussed it is difficult to see how it can be argued that one should be included. The fact that in the majority of cases where parents give their house to a child and take a lease back a mutual right to break may be included is not a good argument for rectification.
The main question at issue here is can the brother force Kevin as executor to sublet the tenancy at a commercial rent so he can get some income from it?
I don’t see how this can be implied by the circumstances of this case and were he to apply to Court for an order to force Kevin to do this, I don’t think he would succeed.
So we are left with the unexpired portion of the term of an unexecuted unregistered and therefore almost certainly equitable 10 year fixed tenancy – I think it will be hard for the brother to argue that it should not be terminated by agreement between ‘Kevin as landlord’ and ‘Kevin as executor and current tenant’.
Particularly as – if the property is in poor repair, the estate will be liable for the costs of repair (as the repairing covenants do not apply – see above). The costs of which would need to be taken from the estate and therefore reduce the brother’s inheritance.
Quietly terminating the tenancy will be the best solution therefore for the estate. In my view.
Further to Tessas comments and given the circumstances I also believe it would be hard for the claimant to gain an order for the the property to be let commercially.
Having read the clause around subletting you may be able to refuse permission to sublet on the grounds that it is unreasonable and could write to your brother explaining this with reasons. If your brothers motive is for rental income as opposed to continuing the tenancy then this may avoid him pursuing this further.
Thanks for your comments.
It is if course the rental income he is pursuing he has no intention if continuing in the tenancy as he has his own house.
As I said his position is that the tenancy belongs to the estate and because the term has not expired I should be subletting at commercial rent and give him the share his motive is simply to get the rental income.
The way to look at it is this:
If your parents were still alive and anyone asked you if they had a ten year tenancy you would no doubt answer “yes”. If your answer is correct, and on balance I think it is even if the tenancy is only equitable, it has to mean that immediately after the survivor of your parents died there was still a tenancy as a tenancy does not expire automatically on the death of the tenant. The question then is whether you can end the tenancy before its expiry date. (We ignore the fact that no expiry date was put in the lease as we are proceeding on the basis that you accept that you granted your parents a ten year tenancy.) Restricting ourselves at first to the documentation the answer is that you cannot as the lease contains no right to break. I have discussed above whether a right to break could be supplied on an application for rectification. On balance I think not because you would have to show not just that there was an understanding that the tenancy would end on the death of the survivor but that a right to break was specifically agreed.
So, what if the there is a ten year tenancy still in existence that you cannot as landlord end unilaterally? Then, as executor and ignoring your own interest, you have to consider if the tenancy has any value. Given all the circumstances and the precarious nature of the tenancy valuing it is going to be rather a theoretical exercise as there is not much of a market for equitable tenancies. Any value will have to depend on the length of term left, the condition of the property and the obligations imposed on the tenant. Since the tenancy is for ten years no obligation is imposed on the landlord to carry out major repairs. You may get to the point where the tenancy has a negative value in which case there is some justification for ending it. However, you would need to proceed with caution as the tenancy belongs to the beneficiaries and not you personally as executor. Any decision as to what to do has to be a joint decision of those entitled to the tenancy.
Of course that the whole thing is more complicated because of the lack of formalities on several fronts and the failure of the documentation to record the true intentions of those involved. Both Tessa and I are/were landlord and tenant specialist lawyers and are left scratching our heads. Whilst I never advocated running off to counsel just because a question was difficult, this is a case where, if you cannot reach agreement with your brother, you need advice from a specialist landlord and tenant chambers, i.e. lawyers who are even more specialist than Tessa and I!
Thanks lawcruncher for your views.
You say that if you were asked if the parents were alive than you would say that they had a 10 year tenancy.
Technically they had a 10 year tenancy but I would reply by saying that my parents could live there as long as they wished.
Why only have 10 years why not more or less?
My parents were elderly in there 80’s so the 10 year term was suggested by the solicitor at the time simply for them to live there as long as they were alive.
As for repairs the property is in need of some major repairs for example leaking roof/Windows the list is extensive.
Am I right in assuming that all these repairs would have to be done by the estate as the lease is over 7 years? Or can he argue that some of the repairs are as result of wear tear over several years. Therefore making me liable as landlord.
If so you are right that the tenancy would have a negative value after these repairs.
Further who would be responsible for repairs if the property was sublet as the new tenants would probably be on a shorthold tenancy is this correct or would they be on the same current lease arrangement.
and would that be another reason for me to refuse subletting.
Thanks
When I had a quick look at the form of lease you used I could not see that any repairing obligations were imposed on the landlord. If the term exceeds 7 years no repairing obligations are implied. If the lease does not impose external repairing obligations of the tenants then no one is responsible for them. However, if you sublet for less than 7 years (which no doubt would have to be the case) you will have to take on external obligations. (By “you” here I mean either the estate or you and your brother assuming you are the two beneficiaries.) Theoretically you could assign the existing lease, but I doubt anyone would want to take it on once the situation was eplained to them. Your brother cannot make you sublet if you are also entiled to the lease; in fact any decision has to be joint. If you cannot agree only a court can make the decision and you do not want to get into that.
But any decision about what you do cannot really be made until you know where you stand.
How long is left on the lease? For the record, are you and your brother the only ones entitled to the benefit of the tenancy? What is the rental value of the peoperty let on an assured shorthold tenancy?
From Tessa point above I tonight that any tenancy over seven years the landlord was not responsible.
So if the tenancy does not have any repairing obligations to either party as you say then how would I get the property to a rentable condition?
I have previously been told by the estate agents that the property needs quite a bit of work before being able to let.
There are two beneficiaries, would it make a difference if there were more?
The period left for the tenancy is about 5 years. And would probably let for around £500 per calendar month on a AST.
If the tenancy has a fixed term of 7 years or more then the tenant is responsible for putting the property in good repair at the end of the tenancy. Not the landlord. So this would mean the estate (as current tenant) would be responsible for this.
Get estimates for the cost of repair and then send them to your brother and say that if the property is to be sublet, the estate will need to pay to get this repair work done first. Does he agree to this or alternatively does he agree to the ending of the tenancy by consent.
Hi Tessa,
I have had a quote and the rental return will have a negative value after all costs are taken out So hopefully the brother will see sense and agrees to end the tenancy.
So far as I can see (part of the text of the Oyez form is obscured by the word “specimen”) the tenant’s obligations only extend to the interior. No obligations beyond those set out can be implied because the obligations have been agreed. If work needs doing to the exterior or structure no one is under an obligation do it. If any such work needs doing before the property can be let the tenant is going to have to do it.
Kevin needs to decide if he wants to know where he stands before he makes a decision or if he makes an offer.
If he wants to know here he stands I think he needs counsel’s opinion. What that will cost I have no idea.
If he wants to make an offer, the starting point is that the maximum rent is £30,000. From that can be deducted the cost of making the property fit to let, an estimate for maintenance, agent’s commission and an allowance for voids. Divide that by two and you have a figure, but it can be reduced because the title to the tenancy is dodgy.
Thanks Lawcruncher.
So if the tenants (ie the estate) will have to do the repairs then I don’t see my brother pursuing this much further.
As for where the tenancy stands I have had advice from two reputable local solicitors and now from you and Tessa who all agree that the tenancy is either dodgy or that it I should be able to end it and the brother does not really have a case.
Do you think I should write to him as Tessa says above or get counsels opinion first? (As he has threatened with legal action).
Write to him before incurring any expenses. The cost of Council’s opinion would be a legitimate charge on the estate but you do not want to incur it unless you are sure that there is going to be a dispute. Or it could be challenged.
You need to give your brother a chance to reach agreement first.
Yes i will write to him first.
Just for the record, there is (at least so far as I can tell) no obligation on the tenant to do external or structural repairs, but if they are needed for the property to be let then in practice the tenant will need to do them as there is no obligation on the landlord to do them.
There is a bit of a problem here equating “the tenant” with “the estate”. At the moment you are the tenant because the tenancy vests in you as executor. You hold it to deal with it as part of the estate. However the beneficial interest belongs to you and your brother. The question arises as to who should pay any costs to defend the tenancy. Is it the estate or the beneficiaries? In practice the dispute is between your brother and yourself as beneficiaries. The position is further complicated because you are wearing three hats: freeholder, executor and beneficiary. You need to proceed with caution because of the potential conflicts of interest.
We do not know what family politics are involved in all this, but the important thing is to stand back and ask yourself whether in the long run it is best to take the line of least resistance and come to a compromise. It will be all too easy to incur legal costs which exceed the value involved.
As things stand you and your brother are both rather like poker players who do not know what cards they hold and are wondering how much they should bet.
I understand your point that the dispute is between the beneficiaries but the brother is accusing me as an executor for not maximising the estate and wants me to rent the house out as the rental agreement belongs to the estate.
Are you saying that the brother should be paying for the costs of tenancy and not the estate?
As for family politics he has never been close to me or my parents. He is now a disgruntled beneficiary who
seems to think he should have got more.
This is an interesting discussion. I’ll come at it from a different point of view. I am currently writing my will with the help of a firm of solicitors (because my situation involves multiple countries so is tricky). Aside from specifying who should get my stuff, my goals are to make probate as easy as possible for my survivors and to avoid exactly this kind of relatively complicated legal question arising.
Does Kevin have any kind of claim against his solicitor for drawing up an agreement, possibly tenancy, that has proved to be difficult to end after the foreseeable (and foreseen) death of his parents/tenants? Could he get compensation for the cost of hiring counsel to sort out the mess his original solicitor made? Or is this a matter where the brother is the one who is causing trouble and the original solicitor is not responsible?
Jill,
I read this article with great interest.
The point raised by Jill is interesting. It shows the complexity of getting simple things wrong and the issues that sometimes solicitors can cause.
From reading Kevens notes I see that the solicitors have confirmed that the tenancy was to allow the parents to live their and that this is a peppercorn rental. These both somewhat support the argument that the agreement was probably not correctly drawn up.
It seems Keven and his parents have fulfilled their intentions but now Keven is stuck with a legal contract. I am not a lawyer but it would be interesting to understand from a lawyer if Kevens solicitors have to legally take some responsibility.
Hi Bill,
Yes I agree with you and Gill. The purpose of the tenancy has been fulfilled and that the solicitor should have put something in the tenancy to abe to end it but he did not.
I have contacted the firm involved asking these questions and was told that the solicitor who wrote the tenancy has retired. Which doesn’t help the situation.