UK Landlord Forum / Life

Hi everyone,

I'm looking on some advice regarding my deposit, I've looked over my contract and its just a little different from ones I've seen on the past. The property comprises of 4 tenants in 4 seperate lockable rooms, there is no connection between us. The shared spaces are a bathroom, kitchen, dinning room and garden. My main question is, does the land lord have to protect my deposit in said contract?

This is the start of the contract:

House Share Agreement
        THIS TENANCY AGREEMENT ("Agreement") dated this
       



(the "Landlord")
   
OF THE FIRST PART         - AND -
         Address:
Telephone:
(the "Tenant")
        OF THE SECOND PART
       
- AND -
        Guarantor name Address:
Telephone:
(the "Guarantor")
        OF THE THIRD PART
       
IN CONSIDERATION OF the Landlord letting certain premises to the Tenant, the Tenant letting those premises from the Landlord and the mutual benefits and obligations provided in this Agreement, the receipt and sufficiency of which consideration is hereby acknowledged, the parties to this Agreement agree as follows:
       
BACKGROUND:
A.   The Landlord is the owner of residential property available for rent and is legally entitled to grant this tenancy.
B.   The Tenant acknowledges that this tenancy is not an assured or an assured shorthold tenancy.


Thanks Alot guys and gals.

To me, that implies something other than a standard domestic tenancy.  I wonder whether this is tied accommodation?  Some kind of agricultural tenancy?  Sheltered housing?   A rehabilitation facility, maybe?

Good morning,

It is just four professionals living in one house, there is nothing other attached or any special circumstances.

It might be some kind of bastardized attempt to avoid the obligations of an AST by calling it something else* - some sort of licence to occupy, say, but then why call it a tenancy?

Other than the line where it says it's not an AST, is there anything else in the arrangement that suggests it isn't an AST?





*It wouldn't stand up in court - if the tenants have exclusive possession then it's a lease (Street v Mountford https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1985/4.html) no matter what the paperwork says - but that doesn't necessarily stop landlords trying it on, and probably getting away with it in most cases!

Quote from: Foonmace on September 17, 2019, 09:07:06 AM
B.   The Tenant acknowledges that this tenancy is not an assured or an assured shorthold tenancy.

However hard landlords try, they can't contract their way out of the Housing Act. Though their attempts may end up causing them to inadvertently granting a non-shorthold rather than shorthold assured tenancy.

That line may be enough to have done that. It's certainly arguable. If so, then the deposit protection legislation doesn't apply, but you as tenant would have more security of tenure given no section 21 possible.

Quote from: Foonmace on September 17, 2019, 09:07:06 AM
My main question is, does the land lord have to protect my deposit in said contract?

Your landlord only has to protect your deposit if it's an assured shorthold tenancy and you paid your deposit after 6th April 2007.  This isn't an assured shorthold tenancy, although if it comes to Court you may well be able to say that it's assured tenancy.

(Edit) ... and I've just seen that KTC already said that.  Sorry -- I sound like yesterday's newspaper.