UK Landlord Forum / Life

Hi there

So I have a flat where all rooms are let with use of common areas (hallway, kitchen and bathroom).

One of the rooms is going to be vacated this weekend. I would like to move in that room myself.

Could there possibly be any issues raised by the remaining two tenants?

Just by way of background, I am moving back in my own home with my young child. The tenants used to have licences signed with me while I was living there previously. Since I moved out, their licences converted into AST's. This gives them more rights in terms of possession etc. However, their contracts clearly state they are using a room in the flat and have not rented the flat as a whole.

Please can you give me some advice – I feel I am walking on eggshells in my own home.

Thank you very much in advance.

BB

Would anyone kindly advise. My tenants are somewhat hostile and I will be moving in with my young child. I need to prepare for all eventualities. Would really appreciate some advise on this one.

Thanks a million.

BB

There is no such things as a "license" no one needs a license to live in a house. so you may want to correct your question before someone gives you an answer.
No one can give you answers on your questions when your information is unclear.

Why did there room agreements turn into AST's? and how can you have multiple AST's on one property?
You are contradicting yourself again, by saying there AST's are for one room.
I don't rent out rooms so I;m not certain on those rules, but if the room is free then it's free.

Also WHY are your tenants "Hostile"?

A licence is another term for an excluded tenancy. See: https://www.gov.uk/private-renting-tenancy-agreements/tenancy-types

The issue here is that BB originally lived in the property and had lodgers, but then moved out and let out the remaining room. This caused the licences - excluded tenancies of you prefer - to become assured shortholds, as excluded tenancies only apply to properties where the landlord lives in and shares key facilities. (I'm not sure why you think you can't have multiple ASTs in one property: it's pretty common, if you'll pardon the pun!)

The question is what happens when BB moves back into the property. I don't think the existing tenants can reasonably object but the AST's won't suddenly disappear so you've effectively got a house full of "lodgers" with assured shorthold rights. I imagine nobody's come up with any advice because nobody's knows what the answer is.

Always be wary of advice form a forum and do your own research.

Wotcha been a while....was intrigued by the title.

Steve1000 is wrong, clearly there are such things as licences.
However even Simon is not 100% accurate, a licence is not just restricted to excluded tenancies (where the landlord is residing in the property).

It is not a straight forward thing to determine the difference between a licence and a lease and no matter what the executed document says that is not how the law works (there is a famous case called Street v Mountford that states this).
It really now depends on the 'substance' not the label. So your agreement can say Lease and it could be held in court to be a Licence and it could say Licence but it might still be considered a Lease.  (A five pronged instrument for digging results in a fork even if the manufacturer claims it is a spade - Templeman LJ).  It depends on what is actually happening regards to the property (see below)

There are two things that create a lease vs licence.
1. Exclusive Possession of the property
2. Certainty of term (fixed or periodic - which may be expressly stated or impliedly presumed by rent payments)
Let's park item 2 as in this case from the limited info I have it doesnt look likely to be an issue.

So clearly while Landlord was residing in the property then no lease could exist (see item 1) neither tenant had exclusive possesion of the whole property (that means they could not legally prevent the landlord from entering the property).  Hence that does encompass Simon's conclusion (above) on excluded tenancy - HOWEVER an excluded tenancy is not the only cause of a  "licence" being created.

If the rooms are now let to individuals they can only have a single lease if they have (the four unities):
1. Unity of possession - they can all occupy the whole property and no one has any exclusive use of any part
2. Unity of interest - they must all have the same term of agreement and be jointly liable for the rent
3. Unity of time - the agreements must start at the same time
4. Unity of title - the agreements must be from the same document
As Simon indicates above this situation is reasonably common, especially with students sharing a house.

If the above four are not met then there is no joint tenancy.
(I think in OP's case points 1 and 2 would indicate there is no joint tenancy but I am inferring that from the limited info given). 

Then the final chance of a lease is if each tenant has exclusive use of a part of the property, in which case two leases can exist.

Therefore IF THEY DO NOT IN SUBSTANCE (not what the contract says) have exclusive enjoyment of the property then in court the two residents are merely licence holders (whether or not the Landlord lives in the property or not). 

So now you know......

So to the case at hand I am a little curious (dubious?) as to why OP says when "Since I moved out, their licences converted into AST’s."...why is that?  Did OP do something like sign new agreements?  If so then perhaps there is a joint tenancy (per the four unities laid out above) if not then what is leading OP to her conclusion?

Therefore without further information it is a little difficult to provide advice but I would say:
1. If nothing was done to convert the licences into ASTs (and the four conditions above are not met) then they remain as licences, the residents do not have exclusive possession and the landlord is free to move back in

2. If the OP did actually sign ASTs with the two tenants and the four unities above are met then she has no right to enter the property and she will be a tresspasser if she does so.

As a final caveat the above is somewhat simplistic and there are other things to take into account, which without reading the agreements that were executed (if any) it would hard to come to a firm landing on the point.

I do question whether it is right to move in with hostiles but it would be remiss to comment further without the full facts of the situation.

Forgot to mention (edited add) if OP moves in then there could well be three 'households' which means this could turn into an HMO (maybe it already was).

Best of luck.

That's interesting about it being possible for a licence to exist in circumstances other than an excluded tenancy. I wasn't aware that such a thing existed. Does it not get exploited as a means to frustrate the protections provided by an AST?

That's a good point Simon.
It was a much bigger issue in the past as Landlord's tried all sort sorts of shenanigans to avoid a tenancy under the Rent Act 1977 which afforded the tenant considerable rights (on rental values etc).
Tactics included holding a key (to prevent the exclusive possession) or writing into the agreement "the landlord has the right to share the premises" even when the premises has only one bedroom!

As a result of all these shenanigans the courts got wise and hence the focus on what is substantively happening as opposed to what is written in the agreement.  These days most people enter an AST and the landlord would then need to go to court to prove it was a Licence to evict but that will likely cost more in time and money (and has risk) than a s21 or s8 and so cases rarely arise.

Under the Rent Act 1977 the values were in some cases significant or the restrictions on Landlord use/access very Long/onerous and so folks tried it on resulting in court cases.