UK Landlord Forum / Life

Hi All,
I am looking for some advice for quite a complex issue.

I am a property owner and lease my properties to a charity, who use the housing for people with mild learning disabilities and mental health support needs.  They use excluded licences.

There was an incident recently where one of the licencees deliberately started a fire in his bedroom and outside his bedroom - staff extinguished the fire and the charity decided to evict him immediately (as you can do apparently with excluded licences) because of the risk of harm to himself, support staff and the other 3 licencees (it is a shared house with 4 licencees).  He refused to give the flame throwing device he had made or the lighter to staff.  He had already had many warnings for other anti social behaviour, but this was the first incidence of endangerment to life.  He went back to live with his mum temporarily, and the charity have remained in contact for welfare checks until he is rehoused.

My insurance does not cover malicious damage, and I asked my insurer that if he were to return with a bigger support package in place from the care providers, would they cover me - they said no.

The Local Authority is now threatening prosecution for an unlawful eviction, unless he is offered to return, which the charity does not feel is safe and would leave me uninsured.

It seems like an impossible situation - Are we supposed to keep someone who is setting fire to items in situ?! Given there are 3 other vulnerable people living there too

Would I as the property owner be liable for prosecution even though I leased out the property to the charity?

Any advice appreciated. Thank you.

The charity is the landlord and they evicted the tenant, so they would be the target for the council for any prosecution for an illegal eviction.
You're not in a position to allow the tenant back into the property (which is leased to the charity) in any case, and you can't evict any of the occupants either.

The council can try and involve you, as the ultimate landlord, but there isn't usually much point, because there's nothing you can do but end your agreement with the charity altogether, which would leave them with more homeless people to deal with.
You may have to choose that option, though, unless the charity can find some kind of insurance cover.

You may want to take some legal advice, though, because you shouldn't have to claim on your insurance, the charity is your tenant, and they should be responsible for repairing any damage caused by their occupation (or compensating you for your loss).
There's a reason insurers don't cover this kind of risk (or charge an arm and a leg to do so), so you need to recover from your tenant.

I'm slightly concerned that the council are threatening illegal eviction, because it sounds as if they don't think the occupation is a licence.
It sounds like they're trying to say it's a tenancy (and they're trying not to take responsibility for the dangerous person).

Yet another reason to stay away from rent to rent.

Thank you for that - it's very useful.

Yes the Local Authority are disputing the licences are excluded licences and trying to say they are tenancies.  The charity has had two separate national organisations look over the licences and both have said they are excluded.  This evidence was sent to the council but they are ignoring it and still threatening prosecution for unlawful eviction.

It is the first time I have had a major issue as the property owner, and the councils comment was along the lines of 'what do you expect us to do? He will be impossible to house elsewhere now with arson history'.  They are trying to force the charity into having the tenant back in my property.

That's simply not something you have any influence over (you can express an opinion, but that's about all). The charity will make a decision.
I'd make it clear that they're responsible for the damage so far and any going forward, though.

The worst case is possibly that the charity decline to argue with the council on the basis that if the council were to be right about the tenancy/licence issue, the charities whole operational model is in trouble.
So they may not want a test case.