Comments on: Reincarnation of Tenancy? http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/10/reincarnation-of-tenancy/ The Joy of Housing Law Sun, 12 Oct 2008 02:48:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: contact http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/10/reincarnation-of-tenancy/#comment-4837 contact Thu, 07 Feb 2008 12:18:33 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/10/reincarnation-of-tenancy/#comment-4837 Bea, rumour has it that legislation may be forthcoming in the autumn. There are even hopes that it may be retrospective. Fingers crossed, particularly now we have Caroline Flint in charge... Bea, rumour has it that legislation may be forthcoming in the autumn. There are even hopes that it may be retrospective. Fingers crossed, particularly now we have Caroline Flint in charge…

]]> By: Bea http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/10/reincarnation-of-tenancy/#comment-4835 Bea Thu, 07 Feb 2008 07:50:48 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/10/reincarnation-of-tenancy/#comment-4835 Has anyone seen or heard any progress on this matter? I have been waiting for the outcome of the consultation to no avail. Has anyone seen or heard any progress on this matter? I have been waiting for the outcome of the consultation to no avail.

]]> By: contact http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/10/reincarnation-of-tenancy/#comment-3798 contact Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:59:04 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/10/reincarnation-of-tenancy/#comment-3798 I don't see why not - just think of it as a mass amendment under the slip rule. I don’t see why not - just think of it as a mass amendment under the slip rule.

]]> By: Sam http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/10/reincarnation-of-tenancy/#comment-3785 Sam Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:41:03 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/10/reincarnation-of-tenancy/#comment-3785 I lean towards the ‘turn all SPOs to PPOs retrospectively’ option, although I can see the issues that might raise for denied successions etc I don't think that is CPR compliant! I lean towards the ‘turn all SPOs to PPOs retrospectively’ option, although I can see the issues that might raise for denied successions etc

I don’t think that is CPR compliant!

]]> By: contact http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/10/reincarnation-of-tenancy/#comment-3747 contact Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:05:58 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/10/reincarnation-of-tenancy/#comment-3747 Lee, thanks, that is useful, particularly the notice of intention to demote point. I now think that a NTQ might also have the same effect, at least where the ground is a fundamental breach of the tenancy agreement - but then facing the problem that any new tenancy has likely already been determined. (An NTQ as trespasser wouldn't revive tenancy and would likely stand, vide L&Q v Ansell.) The consultation paper is interesting - seems like a clear look at the problem. I lean towards the 'turn all SPOs to PPOs retrospectively' option, although I can see the issues that might raise for denied successions etc.. I don't think there should be a retrospective amnesty/indemnity for disrepair, though, as it is only very recently that Councils and RSLs have really relied on tolerated trespasser status to not do repairs. Lee, thanks, that is useful, particularly the notice of intention to demote point. I now think that a NTQ might also have the same effect, at least where the ground is a fundamental breach of the tenancy agreement - but then facing the problem that any new tenancy has likely already been determined. (An NTQ as trespasser wouldn’t revive tenancy and would likely stand, vide L&Q v Ansell.)

The consultation paper is interesting - seems like a clear look at the problem. I lean towards the ‘turn all SPOs to PPOs retrospectively’ option, although I can see the issues that might raise for denied successions etc..

I don’t think there should be a retrospective amnesty/indemnity for disrepair, though, as it is only very recently that Councils and RSLs have really relied on tolerated trespasser status to not do repairs.

]]> By: Lee http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/10/reincarnation-of-tenancy/#comment-3745 Lee Tue, 09 Oct 2007 08:00:14 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/10/reincarnation-of-tenancy/#comment-3745 I agree with your take. It seems now to be accepted that a tolerated trespasser is in an unenviable position (no right to repairs, right to buy, liable to be evicted very easily etc). But there is no way out unless you can argue that a new tenancy has been created. I have a case where the tenant is in just that position, having received a SPO and complied fully. The RSL has now served a section 8 and a notice of intention to demote. My view is that neither of those acts are consistent with the relationship being that of tolerated trespasser and tolerating property owner; it is only consistent with the landlord accepting that a new tenancy has been created. In my case, it was an assured, so I would probably concede that the new tenancy is an AST. As it happens, the point has not been spotted by the landlord so we are running it as a regular possession defence. No doubt, you'll have seen Ansell, Hall, White v Knowsley. There was quite a useful consultation paper at the communities.gov site released in August. See http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/toleratedtrespassers I agree with your take. It seems now to be accepted that a tolerated trespasser is in an unenviable position (no right to repairs, right to buy, liable to be evicted very easily etc). But there is no way out unless you can argue that a new tenancy has been created. I have a case where the tenant is in just that position, having received a SPO and complied fully. The RSL has now served a section 8 and a notice of intention to demote. My view is that neither of those acts are consistent with the relationship being that of tolerated trespasser and tolerating property owner; it is only consistent with the landlord accepting that a new tenancy has been created. In my case, it was an assured, so I would probably concede that the new tenancy is an AST.

As it happens, the point has not been spotted by the landlord so we are running it as a regular possession defence. No doubt, you’ll have seen Ansell, Hall, White v Knowsley.

There was quite a useful consultation paper at the communities.gov site released in August. See http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/toleratedtrespassers

]]>