AST versus licence in rent to rent agreement?

A licence only applies if they are a regulated housing provider or actually live on the premises. This sounds dodgy to me, what exactly is currently legal set-up, it should have been a lease arrangement.

You cannot grant a licence unless one of the conditions is met.

A Rent to Rent agreement is NOT an AST but a Contractual Tenancy and therefore does not come under the Housing Act 1988, or I believe the RRA.

Schedule 1 of the Housing Act 1988 gives a list of tenancies which cannot be assured tenancies and that includes business tenancies i.e. where the purpose of the let is business i.e. Rent to Rent, Care Homes etc., holiday lettings and where there is a resident landlord.

As you have a Rent to Rent agreement, ie a Contract not an AST, with a company the company is the Landlord especially if the company, and not you, protects any deposits they take under their company name.

A licence to occupy might apply if they were offering in room cleaning and laundering to the occupants and possibly breakfast and occasionally moved them between rooms. Are they proposing to do this? If not, what makes yhem think it wouldn’t be regarded as a sham licence by the courts? If they were legally able to do this, why would they need you to authorise them to do it? Or is the real reason to implicate you in the decision and when the Council issues the £40,000 civil penalty, they can fold the company and leave you to pay it?

Most regular rent to rent arrangements wont survive the transition to the RRA as the R2R operator can’t guarantee to ever be able to return the property to you, the superior landlord. Plus yhe over-turning of Rakusen v jepsen of course.

Your “management company” is either very dodgy, or simply don’t understand anything about tenancies.

If they rent the properties from you, then that agreement should be a “lease”. You are the leaseholder, and the company are your tenant. If they then let the rooms to individuals, then they are the landlord to those individuals, BUT you are the head landlord and may also retain some legal liabilities.
The individual occupiers are tenants (regardless of whether you or your management company call them licensees).

If the management company don’t rent the property from you, but instead they find you tenants, then they are a letting agent (and perhaps also a managing agent). If you have a tenancy with the actual occupiers, then it is you that is their landlord, regardless of the management company’s involvement (they are just YOUR agent).

However, if your “management company” is a bona fide charity, or not-for-profit organisation, or a registered provider of social housing, or a council, then that organisation could in theory let the rooms on a licence agreement (if appropriate conditions are in effect, and can be evidenced such as to override the legal presumption of a tenancy).

Does it past the sniff test? If it sounds like an AST then its an AST. The law looks at what actually happens on the ground. If the tenants are being treated like tenant then its an AST not matter what your agent calls it. Don’t sign any new template until you get a legal review.

Street v Mountford 1985 comes to mind. A 4 pronged garden implement is a fork, even if you try to call it a spade ( aka, cannot call a Tenancy a License )