If your house goes with your job

[lanbury]

A fiends DH is employed in an agricultural manager role and has been in the same job for 16 years. The employer provides them with a house which they’ve lived in for the same period of time. Last week he was called in to the office and told there are changes in the law to “benefits in kind” and that the house they live in is effectively too nice for the job he does. They have said he’s either got to leave and they’ll find a much smaller house (obviously don’t want to leave the home they’ve had all this time) or they’ll have to pay a huge amount of “rent” to make up the shortfall the employer now feels the house is worth if they were to let it out! I’ve obviously told my friend to get legal advice, but it all seems very unreasonable of the employer to suddenly drop this bombshell - can they do this?

I think they are lying. I think the property is exempt, and if there were changes it would lead to a situation where the tenant would be due to pay hmrc for the use of the property rather than rent. It sounds like they are looking for an excuse to increase revenue. Is the business under financial strain? A lot of agricultural business are at the moment, due to the dry summer.

But having said that, I don't know what their rights as a tenant would be.

The friend needs specialist legal advice on agricultural tenancies. Probably outside the remit of MN!

Thanks, yes I know it’s a specialist thing and yes, definitely need professional advice, but always good to gauge the MN view in the meantime!
Yes, definitely think the business are looking to increase revenue, it’s more a case of whether they can legally evict from this house and put them in a smaller/inferior place.

I know some people who were provided with free accommodation with their job, no bills. The property was knocked down to build a new building, I don't know if their wages were increased. They moved and had to pay rent and bills at the new property

From what I understand, there will be whether this is ok according to the contract and secondly according to tax laws.

I pay tax on a "housing allowance" although the house is owned by the company. The housing allowance is slightly lower than market value for the property but not by too much. Certainly arguably fair.

There was a government review into tied housing and related tenancies a couple of years ago. I don't know what the outcome was (I no longer have family in tied housing, but I grew up in a tied house, and my sister spent half her adult life in one.) It's possible there have been changes which will seem unfavourable, but you need to find our what the current law on it is - and as there may have been changes, it might be that a precedent hasn't been set yet.

It will be interesting to know what a professional in the area would think.

Thanks very much for the replies with this