In the UK, where and how are &quot;tenants in common&quot; details officially recorded? When purchasing a property, we instructed the solicitor to set it up as tenants in common, with unequal shares in the beneficial interest. A few years later, I am struggling to find anything in writing confirming this was done or contact the solicitor who did the conveyancing. Some online research I have done seems to say &quot;tenants in common&quot; is not something recorded on the deed of transfer/ownership, but done elsewhere. Often a &quot;deed of trust&quot; is involved but I am not sure if this document is where the beneficial interest is legally set out, and if so if it is filed centrally anywhere. Some reading seemed to suggest the onus is on me to prove the &quot;Tenants in Common&quot; status otherwise it is assumed joint tenancy (co-ownership). Can someone clarify what documents actually formalise &quot;tenants in common&quot; and if they are lodged somewhere? Is it simply a document the owners arrange privately - so if we cannot find the document we can just make a newer one?
If the property is in england-and-wales and if it's... ...registered you will know that the owners are tenants in common because there will be a restriction registered in Section B Proprietorship Register that states: RESTRICTION: No disposition by a sole proprietor or the registered estate (except a trust corporation) under which capital money arises is to be registered unless authorized by an order of the court’. This restriction alerts a Solicitor or Conveyancer to the fact that the owners are tenants in common and one of them alone cannot sell the property. Source Further reading may be found at: How to read a title register about the proprietorship (B) register which shows: the class of the title the names of the current registered owners and the addresses we use to contact them (sometimes) how much they paid for it or an indication of its value on a stated date any restrictions – these are entries that limit the owner’s power to deal with the property, for example, to stop them selling or securing a loan without their mortgage lender’s consent (My emboldenment)
In most cases, there is no direct legal recourse for such a withdrawal. Money in a joint account is co-owned, and any account holder may withdraw any of it for any lawful purpose. As the article &quot;What is a joint bank account?&quot; from Bankrate.com states: The money in joint accounts belongs to both owners. Either person can withdraw or spend the money at will — even if they weren’t the one to deposit the funds. The bank makes no distinction between money deposited by one person or the other, making a joint account useful for handling shared expenses. But a joint bank account should only be opened with someone whom you trust, since that person has equal control over the account’s funds. If the account holders have a contract or legal agreement that controls what money can be withdrawn and for what purposes, then a violation of such an agreement might be a cause for legal action. But merely opening a joint account does not create such an agreement nor imply it.
The brother is under no obligation to buy, the sister is under no obligation to sell. As co-owners they each enjoy the right to use the property; that the sister chooses not to does not change the brother's right. If the property is owned as tenants in common (the most likely arrangement), the sister can sell or lease her share to whoever she likes without the brother's consent. She could even extend an invitation to an outlaw motor cycle gang to be house guests. If it is a joint tenancy, there is no sister's "share"; the siblings own the whole property as an indivisible whole. In that case both must agree to any dealings.
Anyone who processes personal data using electronic means or with some filing system is a data controller, as long as they fall within the GDPR's territorial scope, they're not doing the processing on behalf of another data controller, and they're not only doing the processing for purely personal or household purposes. In todays world, it's almost certain that electronic means are involved. And establishing a rental contract generally involves some personal data. We can also assume that both parties are in the UK, and that both are acting on their own behalf. So this leaves the household exception. Larry the landlord will not be covered by the household exception since they're using the personal data for a business purpose. Larry is a data controller. If Tim the tenant is renting a place to live in himself, he's probably acting for purely personal or household purposes and would not be a data controller. If Tim the tenant is renting space for his office, for a church, or for a chessclub in which he is a member, he's no longer acting for purely personal or household means. Depending on context, Tim or Tim's organization may be a data controller. The ICO's guidance on controllers and processors has a checklist “Are we a controller?” that lists common factors establishing controllership. On another page, they write: Wherever personal data is used for purposes other than personal or household processing, the organisation behind it is a controller. Personal or household processing means the personal data you’d usually have in your home, such as family photo albums, friends’ addresses and notes on the fridge, none of which would be covered by data protection laws unless there was another connection to a professional or commercial activity.
As Paul Johnson says, this is a planning permission thing. The parking places your landlord has leased you are real; they exist. They just don't have planning permission for all of them. It's no different to if the landlord got planning permission for a building of four flats, and built a block of six flats. Building those two additional flats would illegal, and the planning authority could take enforcement action against the landlord for it; however, letting those two additional flats out is perfectly legal. Similarly letting those parking places is legal; it's just that the planning authority may take action against the landlord to force two of the parking places to be removed. At that point the landlord would have to break the contract with the tenants of the parking places, and would be liable for damages. In practise, unless there are some activist neighbours, the planning authority won't take any enforcement action (spending money on legal action for two parking places is not high on their list of priorities). Even if there are some activist neighbours, they probably won't bother. Finally, any development becomes lawful after ten years, and if the development is used as dwellings, after four years. It is not clear to me whether the parking spaces would be considered as a separate development to the flats (and hence have a ten year limit), or whether they are ancillary to the dwellings (and hence have a four year limit). My suspicion is that the landlord was asked to sign an application for a Lawful Development Certificate (which essentially just certifies that the development is out of time for planning enforcement). If so, that means that ... the development is out of time for planning enforcement, so you have no need to worry. Incidentally, if I am right, your friend doesn't have any need to worry either, and is probably being put off the purchase by an overly cautious conveyancer. (Note: I am not a lawyer, and in particular, I am not your friend's lawyer.)
If it says "no pets" in the leasehold, then yes, that is enforceable. It doesn't have to be reasonable (in your opinion, or objectively) to be enforceable. Your choices are to either negotiate different leasehold terms, or to find a different leasehold.
There are two separate issues here. Firstly, the deposit. Any deposit is required by law to either be placed in an approved deposit scheme provider at the start of any tenancy, or be insured with a provider. Either way, the landlord (or their letting agent) is required to issue the tenant with certain prescribed information within a certain period, as well as meet a few other requirements. Failing to do this can result in the landlord having to return the deposit and pay a fine to the tenant - if the tenant is willing to take him to court. If the landlord has done everything by the book, they don't owe you anything. (If they've paid the deposit into a scheme, then they will not receive any interest, as it's kept by the scheme provider to pay for their services.) Secondly, the renewal fee. These are legal and commonplace. However, you're never obliged to renew your tenancy, as if the fixed term expires and you don't leave, then it automatically becomes a statutory periodic tenancy (often called a "rolling tenancy"). With a periodic tenancy, you can leave by giving one month's notice in writing; or your landlord can request that you leave by issuing a section 21 notice, which gives you two months to depart or face legal action. If you tell the landlord that you would like to change to a periodic tenancy when the current fixed term ends, then no-one has to do anything (though the letting agency may charge you an admin fee). The landlord cannot impose a new tenancy agreement, but they can issue a section 21 notice. Or, as you suggest, you can request a longer fixed term. This provides more security for you and the landlord - though it makes it harder to leave early, as you're potentially liable for the rent for the whole term.
Yes, they still have to go through the normal eviction process and must still provide the minimum number of days required by their local jurisdiction in order to vacate the property. By moving in and establishing residency, the tenant and landlord form an implied lease - the tenant does not need anything in writing in order to establish their legal rights to tenancy. More information: No written lease--Am I in trouble?