Back
to top
Land Law
Watch this threadPage 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
IsaacLLB
Badges:
2
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Is Exclusive Possession given automatically to the tenants? Or is there an agreement to be signed?
It says that there is a right to exclusive possession but is there any statute or case law that states it must be given?
Apart from Lord Templemen's statement in #Street V Mountford.
It says that there is a right to exclusive possession but is there any statute or case law that states it must be given?
Apart from Lord Templemen's statement in #Street V Mountford.
0
reply
Bitesizelaw
Badges:
10
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report
#2
(Original post by IsaacLLB)
Is Exclusive Possession given automatically to the tenants? Or is there an agreement to be signed?
It says that there is a right to exclusive possession but is there any statute or case law that states it must be given?
Apart from Lord Templemen's statement in #Street V Mountford.
Is Exclusive Possession given automatically to the tenants? Or is there an agreement to be signed?
It says that there is a right to exclusive possession but is there any statute or case law that states it must be given?
Apart from Lord Templemen's statement in #Street V Mountford.
You may have got this the wrong way around. In order for an agreement to be a tenancy there must be exclusive possession. If it's not present; it's a licence. An agreement may state that exclusive possession has been given, but this is not conclusive. What is actually happening in practice is more important. One thing to keep in mind when you are reading cases on this topic is that the property owner was usually attempting to avoid creating a tenancy in order to avoid the consequences of legislation giving tenants security of tenure and/or rent control. One way they attempted to do this was to get occupiers to sign an agreement stating that they did not have exclusive possession and other 'fictitious' clauses but, in reality, the occupier did have exclusive possession i.e. a tenancy.
Lord Templeman's dicta in Street v Mountford is usually sufficient authority for the requirement for exclusive possession,
0
reply
IsaacLLB
Badges:
2
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
(Original post by Bitesizelaw)
You may have got this the wrong way around. In order for an agreement to be a tenancy there must be exclusive possession. If it's not present; it's a licence. An agreement may state that exclusive possession has been given, but this is not conclusive. What is actually happening in practice is more important. One thing to keep in mind when you are reading cases on this topic is that the property owner was usually attempting to avoid creating a tenancy in order to avoid the consequences of legislation giving tenants security of tenure and/or rent control. One way they attempted to do this was to get occupiers to sign an agreement stating that they did not have exclusive possession and other 'fictitious' clauses but, in reality, the occupier did have exclusive possession i.e. a tenancy.
Lord Templeman's dicta in Street v Mountford is usually sufficient authority for the requirement for exclusive possession,
You may have got this the wrong way around. In order for an agreement to be a tenancy there must be exclusive possession. If it's not present; it's a licence. An agreement may state that exclusive possession has been given, but this is not conclusive. What is actually happening in practice is more important. One thing to keep in mind when you are reading cases on this topic is that the property owner was usually attempting to avoid creating a tenancy in order to avoid the consequences of legislation giving tenants security of tenure and/or rent control. One way they attempted to do this was to get occupiers to sign an agreement stating that they did not have exclusive possession and other 'fictitious' clauses but, in reality, the occupier did have exclusive possession i.e. a tenancy.
Lord Templeman's dicta in Street v Mountford is usually sufficient authority for the requirement for exclusive possession,
0
reply
Bitesizelaw
Badges:
10
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report
#4
(Original post by IsaacLLB)
Thankyou so much BitesizeLaw for the reply! Clarified stuff thankyou!
Thankyou so much BitesizeLaw for the reply! Clarified stuff thankyou!
Bitesizelaw - Amanda Grant (private land law tutor)
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges:
22
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report
#5
(Original post by IsaacLLB)
Is Exclusive Possession given automatically to the tenants? Or is there an agreement to be signed?
It says that there is a right to exclusive possession but is there any statute or case law that states it must be given?
Apart from Lord Templemen's statement in #Street V Mountford.
Is Exclusive Possession given automatically to the tenants? Or is there an agreement to be signed?
It says that there is a right to exclusive possession but is there any statute or case law that states it must be given?
Apart from Lord Templemen's statement in #Street V Mountford.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges:
22
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report
#6
Kids these days more interested in spouting what textbooks are saying rather than trying to form an understanding such that they could write the textbook. Wholly derivative and not what my mam would have for me.
1
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
