Right to occupy
The property being passed on was one line of thought, but it is possible that although ownership was passed directly and solely to the daughter (would-be-LL) it might also have been with a condition that the brother would be entitled to occupy it.
The "right to occupy" was at issue in CH/1578/2006. Because of the facts, that case can probably be easily distinguished from the case mentioned above. However, it does confirm that principle that if a person has the right to occupy, no rent liability could be enforced (unless provided for in the terms).
CH/1578/2006: http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/CH_1578_2006.doc
As for the questions posed by the LA, my advice is to answer them straightforwardly BUT, also make it clear why rent is now being charged when it wasn't previously - any supporting information / evidence in that respect would be helpful.
|