Rent Act 1977 - surviving spouse

I am helping a landlord, who owns a house (freehold) with a old tenant/tenancy.

The Original tenancy commenced in 1945 to the tenant [Thomas], he died in 1950.

Thomas's wife [Nancy] and children continued living in the house after his death, as "holding over" until 1960 when a new written tenancy was granted to his son in law [John] who lived with his wife [Mary] at the house (they lived there already together with Thomas since 1945).

Thomas's wife Nancy died in 1965.

John [sIL] died in 1970. His wife (Mary, daughter of Thomas) continued living there with her children and continues to this day (she is obviously very old).

Is Mary the second successor or ...

QUESTION: Was the holding over period after Thomas's death a tenancy in first succession to Nancy as the spouse of Thomas and then to John as the second successor so Mary is the third successor? or could it be argued (by Mary) that the tenancy went direct to John without Nancy at all? for example Nancy wasn't interested in the tenancy and it therefore went directly to John?

A few relevant extracts from the legislation.

THE 1997 Rent Act.

• SCHEDULE 1, Part I

SECTION 2

2 The surviving spouse (if any) of the original tenant, if residing in the dwelling-house immediately before the death of the original tenant, shall after the death be the statutory tenant if and so long as he or she occupies the dwelling-house as his or her residence.

(2)For the purposes of this paragraph, a person who was living with the original tenant as his or her wife or husband shall be treated as the spouse of the original tenant. ..................

SECTION 3

Where paragraph 2 above does not apply, but a person who was a member of the original tenant’s family was residing with him in the dwelling-house] at the time of and for the [period of 2 years] immediately before his death then, after his death, that person or if there is more than one such person such one of them as may be decided by agreement, or in default of agreement by the county court, shall be [entitled to an assured tenancy of the dwelling-house by succession].

SECTION 10

(1) Where after a succession the successor becomes the tenant of the dwelling-house by the grant to him of another tenancy, “the original tenant” and “the first successor” in this Part of this Schedule shall, in relation to that other tenancy, mean the persons who were respectively the original tenant and the first successor at the time of the succession, and accordingly—

(a)if the successor was the first successor, and, immediately before his death he was still the tenant (whether protected or statutory), [F1paragraph 6] above shall apply on his death,

(b)if the successor was not the first successor, no person shall become a statutory tenant on his death by virtue of this Part of this Schedule.

(2)Sub-paragraph (1) above applies—

(a)even if a successor enters into more than one other tenancy of the dwelling-house, and

(b)even if both the first successor and the successor on his death enter into other tenancies of the dwelling-house.

(3)In this paragraph “succession” means the occasion on which a person becomes the statutory tenant of a dwelling-house by virtue of this Part of this Schedule and “successor” shall be construed accordingly.

(4)This paragraph shall apply as respects a succession which took place before 27th August 1972 if, and only if, the tenancy granted after the succession, or the first of those tenancies, was granted on or after that date, and where it does not apply as respects a succession, no account should be taken of that succession in applying this paragraph as respects any later succession.

Who can help me?

Who can help me?

you need to speak to a solicitor who deals with this sort of thing...

Jeffrey, who is a solicitor who does this stuff, might offer you a bit of free general advice but really you should put your hand in your pocket and pay for specific advice from a professional after letting him/her/them review all relevant documents and understanding what you want to achieve.

you need to speak to a solicitor who deals with this sort of thing...

 

Jeremy, who is a solicitor who does this stuff, might offer you a bit of free general advice but really you should put your hand in your pocket and pay for specific advice from a professional after letting him/her/them review all relevant documents and understanding what you want to achieve.

I'm sure you mean Jeffrey Shaw and not Jeremy..

I'm sure you mean Jeffrey Shaw and not Jeremy..

yeah i do sorrry, i get confused between him and jeremy kyle

I'm sure you mean Jeffrey Shaw and not Jeremy..

I appreciate all that. Thanks.

Can anyone please give me any "informal" advice please.

yeah i do sorrry, i get confused between him and jeremy kyle

Jeremy Kyle?!!! Or possibly Corbyn?

But, you state a 'NEW written tenancy agreement', was given to the Brother-in-Law John, in 1960. That could therefore constitute a brand new tenancy altogether, (albeit to another member of the same family), rather than a succession.

If this was the case, due to the new tenancy of 1960, the first and only succession of this 'new' tenancy to-date, would be to John's wife, Mary, as a result of the death of her husband in 1970.

Did the 1960 tenancy mention anything about succession of the original 1945 tenancy agreement?

Also, with regards to the original tenancy, was that ever in both husband and wife's name, and if so could that be regarded as a succession when Thomas died, if both names were on the original tenancy agreement?

Can anyone please enlighten me the meaning of the following paragraph of The Rent Act s.10, it looks to me like Chinese or upside down.

(4)This paragraph shall apply as respects a succession which took place before 27th August 1972 if, and only if, the tenancy granted after the succession, or the first of those tenancies, was granted on or after that date, and where it does not apply as respects a succession, no account should be taken of that succession in applying this paragraph as respects any later succession.

OK! I like a challenge. Let's try simplifying the wording.

This paragraph shall apply as respects a succession which took place before 27th August 1972 if, and only if, the tenancy granted after the succession, or the first of those tenancies, was granted on or after that date, and where it does not apply as respects a succession, no account should be taken of that succession in applying this paragraph as respects any later succession.

becomes

1. This paragraph applies if:

a. a succession took place before 27th August 1972 but

b. the tenancy granted after the succession (or the first of those tenancies) was granted on or after that date.

2. Otherwise, that succession is disregarded when dealing with any later succession.

Better?

OK! I like a challenge. Let's try simplifying the wording.

 

This paragraph shall apply as respects a succession which took place before 27th August 1972 if, and only if, the tenancy granted after the succession, or the first of those tenancies, was granted on or after that date, and where it does not apply as respects a succession, no account should be taken of that succession in applying this paragraph as respects any later succession.

 

becomes

 

1. This paragraph applies if:

a. a succession took place before 27th August 1972 but

b. the tenancy granted after the succession (or the first of those tenancies) was granted on or after that date.

2. Otherwise, that succession is disregarded when dealing with any later succession.

 

Better?

Jefferey, thanks.

Not quite clear.

1. This paragraph, which? S.10 (1)?

See above: -

Thomas's wife [Nancy] and children continued living in the house after his death, as "holding over" until 1960 when a new written tenancy was granted to his son in law [John] who lived with his wife [Mary] at the house (they lived there already together with Thomas since 1945).

How do you interpret this legislation in practical terms, is the 1960 written tenancy, a "brand new" tenancy, or a succession of the previous tenancy?

Jeffrey, thanks.

 

Not quite clear.

 

1. This paragraph, which?

Don't know; the "This paragraph" to which your s.10(4) cross-refers, I guess.

Don't know; the "This paragraph" to which your s.10(4) cross-refers, I guess.

If you see my first post on this thread, I was clearly referring to: THE 1997 Rent Act, SCHEDULE 1, Part I, s.10 (4).

In any event I wanted to hear what you say, to which paragraph does it relate to?

and most important: how do you interpret this legislation in practical terms, in our case, is the 1960 written tenancy, a "brand new" tenancy, or a succession of the previous tenancy?

Honestly, Rent Act tenancies are so rare you really ought to consult a solicitor, it's really quite specialist.