More red flags at Flag Day at a North Korean flag factory.

The landlord being in Guernsey is not in itself a red flag, though enforcement might be an issue.

The licence is clearly a sham. These things are used to try to deny renters their rights including prevention from eviction, deposit protection, and so on. As a matter of law what matters is what actually happens on the ground: see the leading cases of Antonaides v Villiers and Street v Mountford, in which it was held that:

>If the agreement satisfied all the requirements of a tenancy, then the agreement produced a tenancy and the parties cannot alter the effect of the agreement by insisting that they only created a licence. The manufacture of a five pronged implement for manual digging results in a fork even if the manufacturer, unfamiliar with the English language, insists that he intended to make and has made a spade.

Or to put it another way, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.

At least one letting agent has been successfully prosecuted for issuing sham licences.

Yes.

At the end of the day most of the wiggling around this probably won't work - unless they're actually entering the property they can't just turn a tenancy into a licence by slapping different words into the contract. Exclusive possession (the fundamental distinction between the two) is about reality, not the contract.

However, any landlord who tries stuff like this is probably going to be shit to deal with for the rest of the tenancy. Moreover, while I don't know about Guernsey specifically, litigating and enforcing against a party based outside E+W just adds a whole bunch of procedural hoops which probably aren't worth jumping through for standard tenant claims if things go south.

This assumes the property is essentially a standard let. If there's unusual aspects it might be a bit less shady but I still wouldn't go into it if you're looking for somewhere to live.

Are you getting full occupancy of a purpose built dwelling? I have heard of some arrangements like this for people acting as building custodians, so they get cheap rent and the building owners get someone to look after the building, but the renters can be asked to leave at short notice if the building is needed. NAL but if you are renting a purpose built dwelling on a lease such as that, they can say what they like in the contract, but it’s an AST and all the implied rules of the housing act apply. You can’t just state that laws don’t apply in a contract

A bit more information is needed about the property. Is this intended to be some form of property guardian job?

Not a lawyer, but...

Looks like they are trying to get around the incoming Right to Rent legislation which prevents no fault evictions and ends fixed term tenancies. If it is a licence, it should fulfill certain criteria- like being issued by certain organisations (e.g. universities, NHS) or they need to offer services like regular cleaning to make it like a hotel style occupation. 

If they don't fulfill the criteria of a licence and try any legal action, it would likely be treated as a statutory AST, with all the usual rights/ landlord-tenant relationship applying.

The licenceor being in Gurnsey is not in itself a red flag. The licence will give you materially less rights than an AST and is a red flag. I would suggest finding another flat. Are you in a position to bargain with the Landlord? Have they given you any reason that it is drafted as a licence rather than an AST? Is the flat particualrly cheap?

Is this some crazy tenancy wording to try and avoid rent reform? Surely it wouldn't be valid from april as the rent reform is to replace all existing tenancies.

How is it a red flag? Is it clear?

Letting outside the traditional "AST"

I found this thread while researching commercial licences, but I'm a landlord, so I thought I'd wade in for anyone else who finds this thread.

I've seen this mentioned quite a lot on social media over the last year or so - landlords saying they are providing properties under a licence instead of as an assured shorthold tenancy. They seem to believe they are getting around the regulations by doing this.

Firstly, if you find a landlord who is doing this, you should be in no doubt that they are doing it in order to try to avoid their legal responsibilities as a landlord - i.e. they are trying to rip you off in one way or another. If a landlord is refusing to give you the very bare minimum legal requirements in a rental home, why would you think they are going to be of any use when the boiler breaks or the roof leaks?

Secondly, the law is pretty clear that what makes an assured shorthold tenancy or a licence, is not the title at the top, the intent of the landlord and tenant or even the wording of the contract. If the reality is that the tenant does enjoy exclusive use of the flat and is not sharing the space with other families or the landlord, then the court will likely decide that it is really an AST and give the tenant all the rights - but you will need to fight for them, because as describes above, the landlord is trying to rip you off and won't give in easily. The tendency for a Judge is to say if it looks like a tenancy, smells like a tenancy and tastes like a tenancy, then it is a tenancy.

What length is the contract, 12 months or is it shorter?