Who is the landlord?

[plotplod]

Hi. New to the site but allotment holder for several years and my question concerns the definition in the Allotment Act that states approximately that the landlord of a site is the one who collects the rent and gains from it.
We are self managed so the committee collects the rent from the plot holders, the council collects rent from the committee then the land owner collects rent from the council and the land owner collects rent from the council.
Is the landlord the superior land owner or the council  or the committee?

[plotplod]

[BarriedaleNick]

Well normally the landlord would be the landowner and that would in general be the Council.  Odd that the council is renting the land from someone else - are you sure about that?

[plotplod]

Yes - its a local rich landowner who has given the land for allotments. My first thoughts are that HE is the superior landlord, that the council are the normal landlords although they do not profit from the land.
I am being told it is the committee because they collect rent from us the plot holders but they don't profit from the land or the rent (presumably) so to me they are agents much as in property renting.
? any clues?

[daveyboi]

I would say it depends on for what purpose you wish to define "the landlord"

For the responsibilities for example such as insurance and public liability etc the committee would be the landlord as set out in their agreement with the council.

In as to actually owns the ground it would be the rich land owner who then has probably leased it to the council who has then sub let it to the committee.

If your enquiry was to find out who actually owns the title deeds I suggest looking at the land registry for details.

[Bill Door]

I think you first have to look at your allotment agreement and see if that defines who is the landowner/landlord.  Once you have that then you can raise your query/request with them.  They will then have to decide whether it is their problem to answer or correct. If not then they have to refer to their land agreement and refer the query/request up the line. 

If you really want/need to know then I would suggest that you obtain legal advice.

Bill

[plotplod]

Hi folks.
there is nothing in either lease regarding who is the landlord - I am asking for the purpose of finding out who can use the allotment act to evict tenants. It says its the landlord and defines the landlord as one who collects the rents and gains from the land.
So who is the landlord in our case?
Agree this looks like a legal issue but I can't be the only person who has this dilemma surely! I think I was hoping someone already had the answer .....

[bluecar]

Our Council delegates the responsibility to the management committee. We are totally self managed collecting and banking the rents. We pay rent to the Council, but I'm sure they would not feel they profit from it. I'm not sure whether it differs to landlords in terms of housing, but in this case if you use an agent to let your property and give them responsibility for the collection of rent and other duties such as eviction if the terms of the tenancy agreement are broken, they they act as landlord, even if they are not the landowner.

However, as suggested, it is probably down to getting legal advice.

Is somebody contesting an eviction?

Regards

Bluecar

[sparrow]

Same as Bluecar here. The Council has formally transferred responsibility for all day-to-day management to our committee, including any evictions, as part of our lease of the site. We've a clear eviction process which takes time but is very clear and gives ample opportunity for people to improve.

As an allotment site does your agreement with the Council have similar terms?

I imagine that the contract between Council and landowner also delegates eviction, as well as rent collection etc.

[plotplod]

I'm afraid there is no delegation in either of the leases, just a general clause re running the site by committee elected by members and paying the council the rent.
It does seem a bit muddy - we'd like to use allotment law to sort out a problem with some tenants who are not maintaining their plot but all our efforts using our eviction processes have failed - they just ignore us! thought maybe use allotment law and give them 12 months notice but the site is not being repossessed and there is no bankruptcy.
Legal advice here we come which is not what we want to use allotment holders subs for!
Cheers for your contributions.

[BarriedaleNick]

Ah I see - difficult situation but not one I have come across on our committee.  Wish I could be of more help.

[bluecar]

Are you a member of The National Allotment Society? If so you could ask their legal person, Liz Bunting, for support on sorting this out. My gut feeling is still that as you are self managed and collect the rent then you are the landlord. Does the rent collected go into your 'associations' bank account?

Do you have any of these:

an elected committee;
a constitution; a set of site rules
a tenancyagreement?

Regards

Bluecar

[plotplod]

we have all of those but haven't managed to sort out the problem that way. If we are the landlords, can we use the Allotments Act and give 12 months notice which would give them a final date by which to improve?
Seems like a hammer to crack a nut!

[daveyboi]

To try and avoid legal costs maybe think about how you might move forward in other ways.

I would approach the council to get their views on how to proceed ... they might have a process in place which you are not aware of from the times before the committee took over running the allotments.

Maybe the committee could pass a resolution to incorporate a process of warnings and eviction in the terms of the use of the allotments.

[johhnyco15]

we have all of those but haven't managed to sort out the problem that way. If we are the landlords, can we use the Allotments Act and give 12 months notice which would give them a final date by which to improve?
Seems like a hammer to crack a nut!

on our site we have three types of warnings first is 21 days to get what ever the problem is sorted if no  improvement its a 14 day letter to remove stuff if however in those 14 days the plot is back up to standard then that 14 day letter lasts a year any breaches in that year the 14 day letter is exercised to the full   as we have a walk around every month we normally wait until the next walk around before any letter is sent so in reality the plot holder gets 2 months to get the problem sorted oh  i will point out that the letters are a last resort after chatting to the plot holder and explaining whats wrong and how to go about fixing it so it takes around 4 months to evict a tenant and in some cases can be longer eviction on our site really is the last resort we try to accommodate every one needs if someone is struggling with a full plot we offer them a half help them cultivate it give them ideas how keep it under control but still after all that some people have to be evicted its a job all of us on the management committee hate but as i say it very rare hope this helps

[nodig]

....."If so you could ask their legal person, Liz Bunting, for support on sorting this out."......are you suggesting the NAS should take sides in this dispute?  If they do step in they should listen to both sides of this dispute, it might be that the management are not following due process.  Tenancy agreements are after all legal documents there to protect both sides, not just the management.

[BarriedaleNick]

NAS don't "step in" - they are not an arbitration service and they don't "sort things out".  Members are entitled to free initial legal advice so if they are members then they are entitled to ask for it - as we have done in the past when we had issues with a member.  It is a good service but a limited one but the tenant or member is not also entitled to legal advice - only the site or individual who is a member.

[nodig]

BarriedaleNick thinks that the management are entitled to exclusive help from NAS than ordinary members who pay £2.75 per year to the NAS if the site is affiliated to the NAS.  So the NAS will act against ordinary members who have funded the NAS to the tune of £2.75.....that doesn't sound right.

[BarriedaleNick]

The NAS doesn't act against anyone - all it does it to give free initial legal advise to members who ask for it.  Nothing too complex about that.  If an individual is a member, affiliated or not, then they have a right to ask for legal advice as I said above.  In my experience with the NASLG they are very fair minded but the advice is very limited.
I admit my last sentence isn't a good one and I am not sure if it is correct or not.
Technically the site is the member paying the fees - and the fee is based on how many plot holders you have.  That doesn't mean the individual plot holders are members just that the site is - so I don't know if you can, as a plot holder, ask the NASLG for advice.  I think perhaps not but I will be happy to be proved worng.

[nodig]

The affiliated 'site' is nothing more than the sum of all its members, all paying £2.75 to NAS as affiliated members and therefore all equal.  I can't see how the management then magically becomes priority users of NAS services, limited services as they may be.  If NAS lends an ear to management but not to ordinary members why are ordinary members paying £2.75 to in effect help the management act against them?   

[johhnyco15]

The affiliated 'site' is nothing more than the sum of all its members, all paying £2.75 to NAS as affiliated members and therefore all equal.  I can't see how the management then magically becomes priority users of NAS services, limited services as they may be.  If NAS lends an ear to management but not to ordinary members why are ordinary members paying £2.75 to in effect help the management act against them?   

the affiliated site is the member if an individual has his own membership away from the site that is different the whole site gets the benefits IE seed schemes cheaper site insurance  and as said they advise not mediate  but to get this advice a member has to have a personal membership hope this helps