I want to evict a tenant who has been there for 40 years

[RattysPicnic]

I would like a tenant who has lived in a cottage inherited by DH to leave. She has lived there for 40 years. She raised her family there, spent her marriage with her late DH, now looks after her DGC there. She pays very, very little rent and this has always been OK as she and her DH looked after the place. However, in the last 10yrs things have deteriorated, the house is now beginning to become quite a concern and the rent is approximately 1/4 to 1/5 of the market rent. The cost of repairs would run to ££££s - she couldn't afford it and I wouldn't expect her to pay it anyway. But we can't afford to do it either (as the rent would not cover it and we have no additional capital) and each week that goes by the place deteriorates further.

All and every suggestion welcome. I am braced for a flaming about putting an old lady out of her family home. I am also hoping for possible solutions! Thanks

Aga- That analogy doesn't make any sense. All that says is that it's only worthwhile for you to inherit a large sum of money and not a small one? So if the OP was sitting on a beautiful house worth a million quid then it'd be okay to evict the tenant and cash in, but because it's run down and not worth all that much, then she should just give it to the tenant? Riiiiight. Of course it's bloody ludicrous to suggest she gives it to the tenant, it's a house, a bloody house! Not a dolls house, not a wendy house, an actual real property.

So the OP should sacrifice any inheritance that her relative intended for her to have and give away a whole house? Purely because the tenant has lived there a long time and is 'old?' I assume her children would then be expected to gift the house back to the OP when their mother dies? Or not? Do they just benefit from being left the OP's house by their mother? Or are they supposed to give it to someone else? I'm confused about how this works?!

I would imagine the only thing the tenant could do if given the house would be to sell it as she can't afford the upkeep.

But it would be worth a lot more as she isn't a sitting tenant.

We had to move out of our idyllic cottage because the council declared it unfit for habitation.

We were offered the choice of being rehoused for the duration of the renovation or moving permanently. We chose to move but sometimes I look back and wonder whether we should have stayed.

The landlord, who had just inherited the cottage, got a huge amount of grants and help to restore the property back to the housing stock and has subsequently rented it out a decent home for a good price.

Maybe if you or the tenant get the council involved as above, it will all work out the right way.

OP how many bedrooms and rent per month ?

It would aga as it would allow them to get finance for more. Obviously I don't have the exact figures but the OP mentioned financing earlier and the very low rent would not over the neeed amount, so yes, that would be workable.

It's not the OP's house. It has been left to her husband. Not to her.

Splitting hairs, really.

"Apply to put the rent up to market rates - obviously do this legally."

This won't happen.

"Repair the property so you are covered legally - you absolutely need a good boiler in there, if there's a carbon monoxide leak and anything happens even if you're not liable under the old tenancy you will feel dreadful."

Actually there is a legal requirement to do an annual gas safety check, and it still applies even to an old tenancy. And there could be criminal liability if something did happen to the tenant and gas safety checks weren't carried out.

They are married, it's as good as hers!

I think selling at auction with a sitting tenant is going to be the only option really.

It's a funny old world isn't it?

Your husband inherits a house having paid nothing towards it and that's YOUR asset to liquidate to improve your home with.

You live in a house for forty years, paying rent, doing some repairs and that's NOT your asset and in fact you are a burden on the owners to be ditched, deceived and derided.

Hope the OP can sleep tonight. I wouldn't be able to.

You can apply to increase the rent to a fair market rate - I know someone whose done this successfully.

If as your saying the boiler must be completely safe and it's the owners responsibility and not the tenants (remember the tenant is responsible for repairs in this case) then the OP must replace the boiler - it won't pass the check

Of course you will be allowed to raise money from the rent to pay for this

"Aga- That analogy doesn't make any sense. All that says is that it's only worthwhile for you to inherit a large sum of money and not a small one? So if the OP was sitting on a beautiful house worth a million quid then it'd be okay to evict the tenant and cash in, but because it's run down and not worth all that much, then she should just give it to the tenant? Riiiiight. Of course it's bloody ludicrous to suggest she gives it to the tenant, it's a house, a bloody house! Not a dolls house, not a wendy house, an actual real property. "

I'm not really sure what your point is.

I haven't suggested evicting the tenant if the house is worth £1m.

All I am saying is that a house isn't necessarily a hugely valuable asset.
You can find houses for £20k around the country. In Detroit they go for $1k in many places.

If you inherit a house in a bad part of Detroit, or Hartlepool, or a rundown house with a sitting tenant, then you haven't inherited Buckingham Palace have you? It's just the way it goes isn't it? Some of us inherit millions, some of us inherit nothing.

You can't go on spluttering about 'it's an actual real property'. So what?

I remember watching a documentary about an old couple in a sink estate (crime, guns, murder) back in the 90s, they wanted £2,000 for their house to start a new life. It didn't fetch that much, and they couldn't go. That was sad for them, but that was reality. They didn't get to say 'but it's a house! it's worth hundreds of thousands!'. No, they had to live with reality, (and that was their only house - the OP and her husband own how many???) just as OP needs to accept the reality that a dilapidated house with a sitting tenant is as much a millstone as an asset, and if they can't afford to sit on it until the tenant dies, then they need to sell it for whatever price they can, or indeed give it away.

You're very dramatic, Helena!

Not a funny world at all, just life. I'm assuming the tenant understands that she doesn't own the house, seeing as you know, she didn't actually buy it and all.

Maybe the OP wont sleep well tonight- i'm sure your negative assumptions of her have significantly helped.

"You can apply to increase the rent to a fair market rate - I know someone whose done this successfully."

Market rents apply to tenancies started between 1989 and 1997.

This is a pre-1989 tenant, market rents don't apply.

Heh, flipflops, the OP's DH didn't buy it either!

Agree with those saying get legal advice, and investigate legally increasing the rent (and if necess supporting tenant to make HB claim).

Otherwise consider selling with sitting tenant to someone who does have the capital to do repairs. I've seen several houses advertised like that just on Rightmove.

OK, I'm going to arrange for the boiler to be inspected next week.

The property is a small farm steading with four bedrooms and outbuildings and £200pcm. This has so far covered the insurance and not much else (obviously, we can't claim on the insurance for wear).

I'm not saying this is easy but equally I don't see why I'd be expected to put someone else's family and their finances ahead of my own family and finances.

OP says in the subject line 'I want to evict a tenant'. It's not gonna happen. With great power comes great responsibility. The ownership of property is power.

Aga - you are not seriously saying that the OP can't increase the rent ?

It's not rent control like they had in New York - you absolutely can apply to increase the rent if you're in the UK

True, but someone in his family did and left it to him, so it is legally his, not the tenants.

www.gov.uk/housing-tribunals

Here's the gov uk page OP with the address on it to apply for a rent increase for regulated tenancies ( which this is)

Yes that's all very well, but just as the OP has inherited a valuable asset, the children of this lady will be very aware that their mother is also in possession of a valuable asset in this regulated tenancy. Any ideas that she would just move into a retirement flat without payment of a substantial amount of money are frankly barmy.

So you would allow your 75 year old mother live in a place where the roof was in danger of falling in and with no idea that the heating would last the winter, just to prove a point?
Who would pay the 'substantial amount of money'? The op clearly doesn't have it.

Have you spoken to the tenant yet, Ratty?

does she know the property has changed hands?

Think you need a proper survey to be done OP.
Boiler is a start. As others have said you are legally responsible for having it checked annually and issuing a safety certificate. Same for any fires or wood burners.
Could you convert the property to two dwellings. Would the tenant be tempted by new kitchen, bathroom for same rent or maybe slightly more but still below market tents.
Then you could either rent out the second dwelling for market rent or sell it.

Oh of course it's legally his. But the bit about buying's irrelevant. It may not have been bought or sold for generations, just passed down.

Nice for the inheritor.

And lets face it, if the OP's DH does sell with a sitting tenant and makes less than he would without, it's STILL tens of thousands of pounds of free money from where OP's sitting.

Just refreshed and seen Florence's good suggestion re conversion.