How to evict someone who was never your tenant: licensees, adult children and exes
In England and Wales, the label “not on the tenancy” does not decide whether someone is a squatter, licensee, lodger or sub-tenant. The practical question is whether they entered with permission, whether they have exclusive possession, and whether the landlord can remove them without a court order.
In England and Wales, the label “not on the tenancy” does not decide whether someone is a squatter, licensee, lodger or sub-tenant. The practical question is whether they entered with permission, whether they have exclusive possession, and whether the landlord can remove them without a court order.
Automated property management for UK landlords & property managers
Free for our first 50 users — no agent fees
Is an occupier who was never on the tenancy a squatter, a licensee or a sub-tenant?
An occupier who moved in with the tenant’s permission is usually not a criminal squatter in England and Wales, and is more likely to be the tenant’s licensee, lodger or unauthorised sub-tenant depending on exclusive possession, rent and the arrangement actually created. The core tenancy test is substance, not labels: Street v Mountford says that if an arrangement has the requirements of a tenancy, calling it a licence will not stop it being a tenancy. A daughter, brother-in-law, ex-partner or friends of the tenant may therefore be occupiers with derivative permission rather than trespassers, even if the landlord never agreed to them. The residential squatting offence is narrower: LASPO 2012 s.144 requires entry “as a trespasser”, and it expressly says a person holding over after a lease or licence ends does not commit that offence. Do not change the locks simply because the person was never named on the tenancy; first identify whether the original tenant’s tenancy still exists, whether there has been subletting, and who now has permission to occupy.
How do you remove a licensee or permitted occupier?
A non-excluded licensee occupying a dwelling in England and Wales normally needs notice and then a court order, but an excluded licensee can be removed without a possession order after reasonable notice. The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 extends the court-order protection to premises occupied as a dwelling under a licence, except for an excluded licence. A licence is commonly excluded where the occupier shares accommodation with the landlord or licensor, so the live-in lodger or family-home case is very different from a whole flat occupied by a former tenant’s relative. For excluded occupiers, there is no statutory number of days that is automatically “reasonable”; GOV.UK says there are no set rules, while 28 days is a common market rule of thumb rather than law. In Scotland there is no self-help removal route at all: use a court or tribunal order. In Northern Ireland, advisers still recommend applying for a court order against a remaining licensee.
How do you get an adult child or family member to leave your property?
An adult child or family member who shares accommodation with the homeowner or a member of the homeowner’s family is usually an excluded licensee in England and Wales, so they can be required to leave after reasonable notice without a possession order. The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 s.3A expressly covers occupation where the occupier shares accommodation with “a member of the family of the landlord or licensor”. That fits many adult-child-at-home cases, including a son, daughter, partner or ex-partner living as a favour rather than under a tenancy. The safer process is written notice naming the occupier, stating that the licence is terminated, giving a clear leaving date, and avoiding harassment, threats or unlawful force. A 28-day notice period is often treated as sufficient in practice, but it is not a statutory rule. If the person has exclusive possession of a separate property, or pays rent under an arrangement that looks like a tenancy, get advice before treating them as an excluded occupier.
Can you claim back rent someone has taken while living there rent-free?
There is no default right in England and Wales to reclaim “rent” from someone merely because they lived in a property rent-free, and Ali v Khatib confirms that even a co-owner in sole occupation is not presumed to owe occupation rent. The Court of Appeal rejected the older near-automatic approach associated with French v Barcham: the starting point is that a co-owner in occupation does not pay occupation rent simply because the other co-owner is not living there. Recovery needs a separate basis, such as a contract, a representation that can be enforced or challenged, or a TOLATA order where one co-owner’s occupation right has actually been excluded or restricted. If rent was genuinely due, England and Wales have a six-year limitation period for rent arrears; Scotland’s prescription period is five years, and Northern Ireland also uses six years. The sharp distinction is between unpaid rent that was owed and a free occupation that now feels unfair.
Last reviewed August 2026.
Sources
- Street v Mountford report — “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 they only created a licence.” Source
- Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 s.144 — “The offence is not committed by a person holding over after the end of a lease or licence (even if the person leaves and re-enters the building).” Source
- Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 s.144 — “(a)the person is in a residential building as a trespasser having entered it as a trespasser,” Source
- Protection from Eviction Act 1977 s.3 — “(2B)Subsections (1) and (2) above apply in relation to any premises occupied as a dwelling under a licence, other than an excluded licence, as they apply in relation to premises let as a dwelling under a tenancy, and in those subsections the expressions "let" and "tenancy" shall be construed accordingly.” Source
- Protection from Eviction Act 1977 s.3A — “(a)under its terms the occupier shares any accommodation with the landlord or licensor; and” Source
- GOV.UK private renting evictions guidance — “There are no set rules about what's reasonable.” Source
- South Lanarkshire Council v Taylor — “This, in other words, amounts to a statutory prohibition against ejection brevi manu of former tenants who continue to occupy the premises after the end of the tenancy.” Source
- Housing Rights Northern Ireland — “If the licensee remains in occupation after notice has expired, the landlord of the property should still apply for a court order to remove the person from the property.” Source
- Protection from Eviction Act 1977 s.3A — “(a)under its terms the occupier shares any accommodation with a member of the family of the landlord or licensor;” Source
- Metro — “And while the law does not strictly define what 'reasonable' means in this context, in practice, 28 days is generally considered sufficient.” Source
- Ali v Khatib [2022] EWCA Civ 481 — “The starting point in every case is that a co-owner in occupation is not obliged to pay occupation rent merely because he is living in the property and the co-owner is not.” Source
- Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 s.13 — “(a)make payments by way of compensation to the beneficiary whose entitlement has been excluded or restricted, or” Source
- Limitation Act 1980 s.19 — “No action shall be brought, or distress made, to recover arrears of rent, or damages in respect of arrears of rent, after the expiration of six years from the date on which the arrears became due.” Source
- Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 s.6 — “If, after the appropriate date, an obligation to which this section applies has subsisted for a continuous period of five years—” Source
- Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 art.30 — “No action may be brought or distress made to recover arrears of a conventional rent or damages in respect thereof after the expiration of six years from the date on which the arrears became due.” Source
