Tenants in Common under English Law

What is a Tenancy in Common?

A tenancy in common is a form of co-ownership where each owner holds a distinct share of the property.

Unlike a joint tenancy, these shares may be unequal and are treated as separate in law​. All tenants in common have an undivided right to possess and use the whole property (just because you own, say, 50%, doesn’t mean you have to identify which rooms are yours!), but each owner’s beneficial interest (ownership stake) is separate. This means each co-owner can deal with their share independently (subject to any trust or agreement) and can dispose of it by sale or in a Will. In effect, a tenancy in common is an “ownership in undivided shares” of the land​ – the land is not physically divided, but the ownership is conceptually divided among the co-owners.

Under English law (applicable in England and Wales), any land held by multiple people is held on a “statutory trust”. The legal title to the land is held jointly by the co-owners as trustees, while their individual shares exist in equity (the beneficial interest)​. In fact, since the Law of Property Act 1925, it is not possible to hold a legal estate in parts – the law requires co-owners to hold the legal title jointly, with any separate shares only recognised in equity​. A tenancy in common therefore refers to the beneficial holding of shares in the property, not a division of the legal title.

If this seems a bit confusing, think of the legal title as simply a list of owners. Then, think of the beneficial interest as being a log that records the size of each owner’s share.

Each tenant in common’s share is usually proportional to their contribution or agreement (for example, one tenant might own a 75% interest and another 25%​), but all co-owners are entitled to use and occupy the whole property jointly unless otherwise agreed.

Tenancy in Common vs Joint Tenancy

Tenancy in common is one of two main forms of co-ownership in English law, the other being joint tenancy​. It is important to understand their differences, as they carry distinct legal features and consequences. The key distinctions between a tenancy in common and a joint tenancy are:

  • Ownership of Shares: In a joint tenancy, the co-owners together are regarded as a single owner – no individual shares are assigned, and all have an equal interest in the whole property​. In a tenancy in common, by contrast, each co-owner holds a specific share which can be equal or unequal​. For example, three joint tenants each own 100% of the property collectively, whereas three tenants in common might each own a one-third share or any other fraction as agreed​.
  • Right of Survivorship: A joint tenancy carries the right of survivorship (in Latin jus accrescendi). This means if one joint owner dies, their interest automatically passes to the surviving co-owners​. The last surviving joint tenant becomes the sole owner of the property. In a tenancy in common, there is no right of survivorship – each owner’s share does not automatically go to the others on death​. Instead, the deceased’s share will pass under their will or intestacy to their heirs​. In short, joint tenants cannot leave their share to someone in a Will, but tenants in common can​.
  • Severance and Convertibility: Joint tenancies can be “severed” to create a tenancy in common, but the reverse (combining separate shares into a joint tenancy) requires all parties’ agreement and a fresh transfer or trust arrangement. Any joint tenant can sever the joint tenancy – for example by giving written notice to the other owners – which converts the ownership into a tenancy in common with each owner holding an equal share (unless another agreement on proportions is in place)​. Severance ends the survivorship principle from that point on. By contrast, tenants in common already hold separate shares, and to become joint tenants again, they would need to merge their interests by agreement (typically by executing a new trust deed and removing any restrictions. Severance of a joint tenancy does not require mutual consent; it can be done unilaterally by one party at any time, even if the others object.
  • Unity of Interest: In a joint tenancy, the law traditionally requires the “four unities” (interest, title, time, and possession) to be present – meaning all joint tenants acquired their interest at the same time, through the same document, with identical rights to the whole​. A tenancy in common is more flexible: only the unity of possession is essential (all co-owners have a right to possess the whole property), while the other unities need not be present. Tenants in common can acquire their interests at different times and in different proportions. For example, one might become a co-owner later by purchasing a share from an existing owner; this new co-owner would hold as a tenant in common (since a joint tenancy cannot be created at separate times).
  • Dealings and Consent: Joint tenants must act together in dealings with the property – one joint tenant cannot sell or mortgage the property (or any part of it) without the agreement of all, since they have no individual share to dispose of. In a tenancy in common, each owner technically has a distinct share which they could sell, mortgage or otherwise deal with independently​. However, practically, a co-owner wishing to sell the entire property would still need the cooperation of the others or a court order, as one cannot unilaterally sell the whole property that is co-owned. A joint tenant’s attempt to dispose of their interest would generally sever the joint tenancy (for example, selling or encumbering their interest would transform it into a tenancy in common with the remaining owner). Tenants in common have slightly more flexibility – one can transfer their own share to someone else without affecting the other owners’ shares, subject to any agreement between the parties. It is also easier for a creditor to enforce against one tenant in common’s share (for instance, a charging order over one owner’s share), whereas with joint tenancy the whole title is affected until severed.

Summary: Joint tenancy is characterised by unity and survivorship – one estate held by all – whereas tenancy in common is characterised by divided ownership shares and no automatic survivorship​. These differences have significant implications for estate planning and how the property is managed or transferred during the co-ownership and on the death of an owner.

Establishing a Tenancy in Common in England & Wales

Creating a tenancy in common usually involves an express agreement or declaration by the co-owners at the time of purchase (or later through severance or deed). The process and documentation for establishing a tenancy in common typically include:

During purchase – declaration in the Transfer Deed: When two or more people buy a property, they must indicate how they intend to hold the beneficial interest. In England and Wales, the standard transfer form (Form TR1) contains a “Declaration of Trust” section (Panel 10) where the purchasers specify whether they will hold the property as joint tenants or tenants in common​. For example, Panel 10 of Form TR1 provides checkboxes for the buyers to tick their chosen form of co-ownership​:

Source: HM Land Registry Blog

If the buyers select the option that they will hold the property as tenants in common (and they may specify equal shares or particular fractions), then a trust of land is created to reflect that arrangement. HM Land Registry will then record a restriction on the title to signal the tenancy in common (see below). It is important that the conveyancer completes this section clearly – if it is left blank or ambiguous, Land Registry practice is to assume a tenancy in common by default and enter a restriction accordingly​.

Trust Deed or Declaration of Trust: In some cases, co-owners execute a separate declaration of trust or a trust deed, especially if their shares are unequal or if they want to set out specific terms (for example, who contributes what, or arrangements for sale). This document formally records each person’s beneficial share (e.g. one owner 60%, the other 40%) and any conditions agreed between them. A trust deed is commonly used when friends or business partners buy property together, or when a couple contributes unequally. While the TR1 form can indicate if owners hold as tenants in common, it might simply state “in equal shares” or leave details to a separate agreement. A trust deed provides clarity and can be referred to in case of any dispute. It is also evidence of the owners’ intentions which is generally considered conclusive in law as to the beneficial ownership arrangement (per case law, an express declaration of trust will usually determine the shares definitively).

Registration and Form A Restriction: In registered land, the Land Registry does not list individual shares or the words “tenant in common” on the title register. Instead, where a property is held by tenants in common, a Form A restriction is entered on the register as an alert​. This standard restriction states that:

“No disposition by a sole proprietor of the registered estate (except a trust corporation) under which capital money arises is to be registered unless authorised by an order of the court”

In essence, the Form A restriction warns that the property is subject to co-ownership trusts – any sale or mortgage by a sole surviving owner will require overreaching or consent, ensuring a second trustee (or court oversight) is involved so that the interests of the other beneficiary(ies) are protected. HM Land Registry will automatically enter a Form A restriction when registering two or more owners unless it is satisfied that they hold the property as beneficial joint tenants​. If the TR1 declares a joint tenancy, no restriction is entered. But if tenants in common are declared (or nothing is declared), a Form A restriction will appear on the title by default​. The presence of this restriction on a title register is the tell-tale sign that the owners are tenants in common (though the exact shares are not recorded on the public register). Each co-owner still appears as a joint proprietor of the legal estate, but the restriction ensures a purchaser cannot rely on a single survivor’s receipt for purchase money​ – this mechanism relates to the doctrine of overreaching, where purchase funds must be received by at least two trustees so that beneficial interests are transferred to the sale proceeds​.

Changing from Joint Tenancy to Tenancy in Common (Severance): If owners initially hold as joint tenants, they may later decide to sever the joint tenancy – for example, due to a relationship breakdown or for estate planning reasons (so that each can leave their share to someone else). Severance of a joint tenancy in equity can be effected unilaterally by a written notice of severance to the other owner(s) (per to section 36(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925)​. It can also occur by mutual agreement or even by conduct (if the owners treat their interests as separate, as per established case law). The most straightforward method is a notice of severance: a document stating the intention to sever, which is served on the other co-owner(s). Once severance is effective, the beneficial joint tenancy is converted into a tenancy in common – usually in equal shares if not otherwise agreed (e.g. two joint tenants become two tenants in common each with 50%). The party effecting severance can then apply to HM Land Registry to register a Form A restriction to reflect this change​. HM Land Registry provides Form SEV (severance) or a general Form RX1 application to enter the restriction, and there is no fee for this service​. Notably, the act of severance itself (the notice or agreement) is what changes the ownership in equity; the Land Registry entry is a protective step to notify third parties. Severance does not require the other owners’ consent or signature – it is valid as long as notice is properly served​, even if the other owner disagrees or refuses to acknowledge it.

Changing from Tenancy in Common to Joint Tenancy: Conversely, if co-owners wish to merge their shares and become joint tenants (for example, a couple who originally held separate shares but now want the survivorship benefit), all parties must consent. They would typically need to execute a new trust deed or transfer that extinguishes the separate shares and vests the property back into a joint tenancy​. After doing so, they can apply to HM Land Registry to remove the Form A restriction (using Form RX3 or Form ST5 to cancel the restriction)​. Supporting documents, such as the new trust deed signed by all owners, must be provided to prove that no other interests exist and that all owners agree to hold as beneficial joint tenants going forward​. Changing to a joint tenancy is less common in practice, but it can be done (for instance, spouses might do this if they marry and decide they want survivorship, as noted in government guidance​).

Note: In all cases of co-ownership, the property will be held on a trust of land (imposed by statute). The Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TLATA 1996) governs the rights of co-owners (as trustees and beneficiaries) and abolished the old concept of automatic “trusts for sale.” Now co-owners have flexible powers to retain or occupy the land, not just an obligation to sell. The default position under TLATA is that trustees (the legal owners) have all the powers of an absolute owner over the property (TLATA 1996, s.6(1)) but must exercise those powers for the benefit of the beneficiaries​. The trust can be modified by agreement (for example, some trusts limit powers of sale or require consent of beneficiaries – such limitations, if any, would be reflected by a different Land Registry restriction, such as a Form B​). In a simple co-ownership between individuals, usually no special limits are imposed beyond the requirement of overreaching on sale (the Form A restriction). Each co-owner in a tenancy in common is effectively a beneficiary of the trust to the extent of their share, and also (usually) one of the trustees if they are on the legal title. This dual role means they must act in good faith and in accordance with the trust terms when dealing with the property.

Rights and implications of being Tenants in Common

Choosing to hold as tenants in common has important legal implications for how the property can be used, transferred, and passed on. This section outlines the practical rights and responsibilities of tenants in common, and how certain events (like sale or death) are handled under English law.

Right to possession and use

All co-owners, whether joint tenants or tenants in common, have a right to possess and occupy the property. Under the concept of unity of possession, no matter what your fractional share is, you are entitled to use every part of the land (you do not have a right to a specific 50% of the house, for example, but rather a 50% interest in the value of the whole)​. One tenant in common cannot exclude another from any part of the property simply because their share is larger or for any other reason – unless there is an agreement or court order regulating occupation. In many cases (especially domestic situations), co-owners will actually live together or both make use of the premises. If the property produces income (for example, rent from a tenant or profits from farming the land), each tenant in common is entitled to a proportion of that income corresponding to their share.

Along with rights, co-owners have duties to each other. They each have an obligation to not oust the other from the property and to account for any profits made from the land (a principle arising from equity). If one owner is the sole occupier, they generally do not have to pay “rent” to the others (no automatic right to occupational rent unless there’s an exclusion or ouster). However, if one co-owner spends money on the property (for necessary repairs, mortgage payments, etc.), accounting adjustments might be made upon sale to reimburse contributions according to established equitable principles. These matters, while applicable to both joint tenancies and tenancies in common, often come into play when co-owners are tenants in common because their shares are separate and may be unequal, prompting a clearer reckoning of contributions and benefits.

Dealing with the Property: sales, transfers, and mortgages

Each tenant in common has a distinct share which they can transfer to another person. In legal terms, a tenant in common can sell, gift, or mortgage their own beneficial share in the property without the consent of the other co-owners (though doing so in practice may be difficult and is usually done in coordination with the others). For example, if A and B are tenants in common, A could in theory sell her 50% interest to C; C would then become a tenant in common with B, each owning 50%. In practice, however, buyers are generally reluctant to purchase a partial interest in property because they would have to share use with the other owner (unless the aim is to ultimately force a sale). Similarly, one co-owner can mortgage their share – a lender could secure a charging order against that owner’s interest, but this security is limited to that share.

For a sale of the entire property, all co-owners (as legal title holders) must cooperate to transfer the title to a buyer. One co-owner cannot sell the property outright without the others’ agreement. If all tenants in common agree to sell, the process is straightforward: they will act jointly to convey the property and then split the proceeds according to their shares. On completion, the Form A restriction on the register ensures that a sole proprietor cannot give a valid receipt for the purchase money​ – meaning a title can’t be transferred unless overreaching occurs (i.e. at least two trustees receive the money, or a court authorises the sale). In practical terms, this means a buyer will require either all co-owners to sign the transfer or, if one has died, the survivor plus the deceased’s personal representative to sign (so that two people give a receipt and the beneficial interests are overreached).

If the co-owners do not agree on selling, one of them (or even a beneficiary or creditor with an interest) may need to seek a court order for sale. Under TLATA 1996, “any person who is a trustee of land or has an interest in property subject to a trust of land may make an application to the court for an order” relating to the property​. This means a tenant in common (as a trustee and beneficiary of the trust of land) can ask the court to step in if, for example, they want to sell but the other co-owner refuses. The court has broad powers under section 14 of TLATA 1996 to make whatever order it sees fit in relation to the property – commonly an order for sale, but it could also order a partition (in rare cases, dividing the property physically or by adjustment of shares), or regulate the timing of a sale, or make orders about occupation and expenses. When deciding whether to grant an order (such as forcing a sale), the court will consider the factors listed in section 15 of TLATA 1996, including: the intentions of the person(s) who created the trust, the purpose for which the property is held, the welfare of any minor who occupies or might reasonably be expected to occupy the property, and the interests of any secured creditor of any co-owner​. For example, if the property is a family home purchased for raising children, and one co-owner wants to sell but the other lives there with young children, the court may weigh the purpose and the children’s welfare in deciding whether to postpone a sale. On the other hand, if a co-owner’s creditor is pushing for sale to recover debts, the court will consider that interest too. Ultimately, the court aims to reach a fair outcome, but the trust instrument and intentions at the time of purchase carry significant weight​. In many cases, especially where co-owners are simply quarrelling over sale, courts do order a sale so that each can realise their share, unless there are exceptional circumstances to keep the trust going.

It is also worth noting that if one tenant in common becomes bankrupt, their share of the property vests in their trustee in bankruptcy, who may apply to court (often under Insolvency Act 1986 provisions alongside TLATA) for an order for sale to pay off creditors. In such cases, after a certain period (typically one year) there is a strong presumption in favor of sale to satisfy debts, often overriding the other co-owner’s wishes, though the court still considers all circumstances.

Succession: inheritance of shares

One of the defining features of a tenancy in common is that each co-owner’s share forms part of their estate and can be passed on upon death. If a tenant in common dies, their share does not automatically go to the other co-owner(s) (no survivorship)​. Instead, it will be transferred according to the terms of the deceased’s Will, or if no valid will exists, under the intestacy rules to their next of kin​.

For example, suppose X and Y own a house as tenants in common, each with a 50% share. If X dies leaving a will that bequeaths her share to her daughter, then the daughter (or X’s personal representatives initially) will inherit X’s 50% interest. The daughter and Y would then become tenants in common (each holding 50%, unless X’s will or a trust specifies otherwise). The daughter could choose to become a joint legal owner by being registered on the title in place of X (often the personal representatives of X would assent the share to the daughter). During the administration of X’s estate, Y and X’s personal representative would typically act together as trustees if a sale is to occur, ensuring overreaching of X’s beneficial share. If instead the property was held in a joint tenancy, Y would have automatically acquired X’s interest upon X’s death, and X’s daughter would receive nothing of the property (though X’s estate might benefit from the value having passed to Y depending on family arrangements). Tenancy in common thus allows co-owners to control the succession of their property interests, which is often crucial in estate planning, especially for people in second marriages or co-owners who are not relatives. Owning as tenants in common can also prevent at least half of the value of the house being lost to care fees. The first to die can leave the survivor a ‘life interest’ in their share, rather than leaving it outright, and this will not be included in any means test when deciding how any future care will be paid for.

On the death of a tenant in common, probate will usually be required for their share. The Land Registry will not remove the deceased co-owner from the title until the proper documentation is provided. Typically, the surviving co-owner will register a death certificate to note that one proprietor has died (if the legal title was joint, the surviving legal owner remains as the sole legal owner on trust for themselves and the deceased’s beneficiary). The Form A restriction on the title will remain, because now the sole surviving registered owner is holding the trust for themselves and the deceased’s estate (meaning any disposition will require overreaching or a court order). To deal with the property, the personal representatives of the deceased may either transfer the deceased’s share to the beneficiary entitled to it, or more commonly, agree with the surviving owner to sell the property and divide the proceeds. The Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 provides that the powers of personal representatives in respect of a trust of land are the same as those of trustees (TLATA 1996, s.18), so the executors can act jointly with the surviving owner in a sale. If there is a dispute between the survivor and the heirs, again an application to court under TLATA may be made to resolve it.

Importantly, because each share is separate, inheritance tax (IHT) and other consequences will apply to that share as part of the deceased’s estate. If co-owners are spouses, holding as tenants in common means the survivor does not automatically get the share – though spouses often leave their share to the survivor in the Will in any event (which can be IHT-free under the spouse exemption). Sometimes people deliberately use a tenancy in common to ring-fence assets – for example, spouses may each will their share to a trust for children to protect it, rather than letting it pass outright to the survivor. All these estate planning options are only available with tenancy in common, since joint tenancy would defeat the Will (i.e. if held as joint tenants, the Will is ignored on matters of the property ownership). It is therefore crucial for co-owners to regularly review how they hold property in light of their wishes; severance of a joint tenancy is a common step if someone wants to ensure their share goes to a third party.

Resolving disputes and equity considerations

When co-owners disagree – whether about sale, expenses, or how to divide the proceeds – the law provides mechanisms to resolve such disputes, largely grounded in the principles of equity and the framework of TLATA 1996. As noted, any tenant in common can apply to the court for an order under section 14 of TLATA to resolve an impasse (for example, an order to force a sale, to partition the property, or to determine each party’s share if that is in question)​. The court, in exercising its discretion, will take into account the statutory factors in section 15 TLATA​ and any other relevant circumstances. For instance, the leading cases of Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 and Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 illustrate how courts determine beneficial shares when they are not agreed in advance. In Stack v Dowden, a cohabiting couple had purchased a home in joint names (which usually implies joint tenancy and equal shares), but one partner had contributed significantly more to the purchase price. The House of Lords held that while the starting presumption for jointly owned homes is that the beneficial interest is held jointly (50/50), this presumption can be rebutted by evidence of a different common intention​. They ultimately decided the couple owned in unequal shares to reflect their contributions, effectively recognizing a tenancy in common in unequal proportions. Baroness Hale famously stated that in cases of jointly owned homes for couples, “the state of the legal title will determine the right result unless the contrary is proven” – i.e., equity follows the law as a starting point, but will depart from it if the parties’ whole course of conduct shows they intended a different split​.

Equity thus plays a crucial role for tenants in common: each co-owner’s share is determined by the trust that exists between them. If there is an express declaration (e.g. “X owns 70%, Y owns 30%”), that is usually conclusive​. If not, and the shares are disputed, the court will infer or impute a fair share based on contributions and dealings (resulting or constructive trust principles). In Jones v Kernott, the Supreme Court confirmed that where a property is in joint names but the common intention as to shares changes over time (for example, one owner effectively stopped contributing and moved out), the courts can infer or, if necessary, impute a change in the shares at a later date. In practice, this meant that even though the property was bought jointly, the man’s share was only 10% when they finally sold years later, because the woman had paid the mortgage alone for long after separation​. While these cases deal with determining shares (often effectively turning a joint tenancy into tenants in common in unequal shares), they underscore that the trust and equitable principles govern the true ownership between the parties.

For a tenancy in common, where shares are usually specified or at least intended, disputes may arise if one party claims the agreed shares no longer reflect reality (perhaps due to additional contributions or an event not anticipated). The court can be asked to declare the shares (a declaration of beneficial interest) or to order that one party be compensated out of the proceeds for an unequal contribution (under general equitable accounting). In family situations, the court does not have the same wide powers to redistribute property as it would on divorce (Matrimonial Causes Act proceedings) – co-owners who are not divorcing fall under property/trust law only. TLATA provides a relatively neutral framework: it won’t adjust shares for fairness beyond what the trust law principles provide, but it will ensure an outcome (like sale) if needed.

It’s also worth noting that tenants in common must deal fairly with each other. One co-owner cannot secretly sell the entire property or encumber it – any such attempt would be blocked by the Land Registry’s restriction and lack of joining trustee’s consent. If a co-owner tries to exclude another from the property or otherwise breaches the trust, the aggrieved party can seek an occupation order or take action for an account of profits or compensation. In extreme cases, the court might order one co-owner to buy out the other in lieu of sale, if both agree or if it’s a practicable solution.

In summary, being tenants in common grants flexibility and security in terms of shares and succession, but it also means co-owners should ideally have a clear agreement to avoid disputes. English law, through a mixture of statute (like TLATA 1996​) and case law, provides a robust framework to handle any conflicts or changes in circumstance, aiming to uphold both the legal rights and the equitable fairness between co-owners.

Practical example: two friends buying with unequal contributions

To illustrate how a tenancy in common works in practice, consider the scenario of two friends purchasing a property together:

  • Scenario: Alice and Bob decide to buy a house in London for £500,000. Alice contributes £300,000 of the purchase price, and Bob contributes £200,000. They agree that their contributions should reflect their ownership shares in the property (60% for Alice, 40% for Bob). Since they are not a couple and have made unequal investments, they choose to hold the property as tenants in common, rather than joint tenants, to clearly delineate their respective shares.
  • Establishing ownership: During the conveyancing process, their solicitor makes sure to fill out the Form TR1 accordingly. In Panel 10 (Declaration of trust) of the transfer form, the box is ticked that says Alice and Bob “are to hold the property on trust for themselves as tenants in common”, and the unequal shares are specified (often by adding “…in equal shares” or by writing the desired shares in the space provided – in this case it could be specified as 60/40 if the form allows, or more typically, a separate declaration of trust is drafted). Alice and Bob sign a simple trust deed stating: “Alice owns 60% of the beneficial interest and Bob 40%, as tenants in common.” This document is retained with their records. When the purchase is completed and the title is registered, HM Land Registry enters a Form A restriction on the title register to reflect the tenancy in common​. The register will list Alice and Bob as proprietors, and include the restriction preventing a sole-party disposition. Neither the register nor the title deeds will explicitly list “60/40” – that is known from their trust deed – but the restriction flags that separate shares exist.
  • During ownership: Alice and Bob each have the right to live in the house or use it. Perhaps they actually live there together, sharing the space. They also agree on how to split ongoing costs: Alice pays 60% of the maintenance and mortgage payments, Bob 40%, in line with their shares. If they decide to rent out the property or a part of it, they could agree that rental income be split 60/40 as well. Because they are tenants in common, if one of them wanted to leave their share to someone else or even sell their share, they could do so (though selling a share to a stranger might be impractical without Bob or Alice agreeing to sell the whole property). Importantly, if at some point Alice and Bob fall out or one wants to liquidate their investment, one of them can insist on a sale of the property. If Bob, holding 40%, wants to sell but Alice doesn’t, Bob could try to find a buyer for his 40% share (unlikely on the open market), or more feasibly, ask Alice to buy him out. If Alice cannot or will not, Bob can apply to the court for an order for sale under TLATA 1996. The court would consider the situation – the property is an investment rather than a family home, so likely it would order a sale so that Bob can obtain his 40% of the equity. The house would be sold, the mortgage paid off, and then the remaining proceeds split 60% to Alice and 40% to Bob (or their respective nominees). This allows each to retrieve their initial contributions and any gain proportionately.
  • Inheritance aspect: Suppose instead of selling, tragedy strikes and Bob passes away while still co-owning the house. Because Alice and Bob are tenants in common, Bob’s 40% share does not go automatically to Alice. If Bob made a will, his Will might say that his share of the house goes to his sister, Carol. In that case, Carol would inherit Bob’s interest. She could either join Alice as a co-owner (becoming a tenant in common with Alice) or have Bob’s personal representative sell the share. In practice, Carol and Alice might agree to sell the whole house and split the proceeds 60% to Alice, 40% to Carol (representing Bob’s estate). Alternatively, Alice might decide to buy out Carol’s interest (paying her 40% of the current market value) so that Alice becomes the sole owner. If Bob died without a will, his 40% share would pass under intestacy – perhaps to his next of kin (e.g. his parents or siblings). Those heirs would then be in Carol’s position, inheriting the share. Throughout this, Alice’s 60% is secure and unchanged; she does not lose her stake. If Alice had been a joint tenant with Bob instead, Bob’s share would have passed to Alice directly on death, and Bob’s family would receive nothing of the house – a very different outcome. By holding as tenants in common, Bob ensured that his equity in the property could benefit someone of his choosing. From Alice’s perspective, she accepted that arrangement; perhaps she was comfortable that if Bob died, she might co-own with Bob’s sister or have to negotiate a buy-out, in exchange for the clarity that if she died, her 60% could go to her own heirs (maybe Alice has children or other family she wants to inherit her portion).
  • Changing circumstances: Imagine a different turn of events: a few years later, Alice and Bob’s circumstances change and they decide they would rather own the property as joint tenants (say, they enter into a civil partnership or marriage and now want the survivorship benefit). They could merge their interests by signing a new trust deed stating they now hold the property jointly at 100% together, and apply to Land Registry to remove the Form A restriction​. Once that is done, they would hold as if one joint owner. However, if no such change is made, the tenancy in common continues until one of the events above (sale or death or agreement to change) occurs.

This example demonstrates the flexibility and potential complexity of a tenancy in common. It allows bespoke arrangements (like unequal shares) and estate planning outcomes, but it also requires the co-owners to communicate and plan, especially if their relationship or intentions change over time. Proper documentation (such as the trust deed and updating wills) and, if needed, legal advice are key to making the arrangement work smoothly.

Sources: