London is soooo expensive...

[wibble cb]

Just read this :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...

My first thought was greedy banker etc etc, but on reflection, is this more a story about the rights and wrongs of long term tenancies? The judge is appearing to say that although they had a long term tenancy it is nullified by not actually being resident at the house? Or am I reading it wrong ?

[Robert Elise]

if the article is factually correct, then it sounds like common sense and yet another a case of the law working well.
The tenants are cheats and deserve the 500k bill.

[Exige77]

Why keep the mews, on even at a lower rent, if they are not using it ?

Seems strange

[JustinP1]

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

If I had the chance to keep a seven figure place in London for a grand a month just there when I wanted it, I might do too.

However, when I got evicted for not actually living there, I would have given up the ghost then, and not invited legal action which would have meant I would have to lie in order to maintain my 'right' to stay there and keep the rent so low.

[Aretnap]

Exige77 said:

Why keep the mews, on even at a lower rent, if they are not using it ?

Seems strange

According to the landlord's evidence they stayed there "sporadically". Perhaps they found it useful to have a second property in London, as many people do for all sorts of reasons. Especially if they can pay the market rent for it.

Another reason someone (not them) might want to keep hold of it would be if they were subletting it to someone else at something closer to the market rate. There'd be a fortune to be made that way - until the landlord found out.