occupation sans titre

21:27 Apr 5, 2011 

They were all helpful. In the end I used "informal"

16:08 Mar 29, 2011 

The insured party is the one who has the ownership title, an occupant or tenant can have leasehold title, can lose his entitlement to occupancy under the lease (as described by way of example in my message above) or indeed, the property may be occupaied by folk who have never had leasehold title to it at all.

ASker will no doubt know who is "the insured" here!

16:02 Mar 29, 2011 

yes, but since I'm no longer sure, "to" seemed less conspicuous...or it is some sort of "catch 22" situation we and/or the insured are not privy to...
"de la part de" could??? be interpreted as "on the part of"

15:38 Mar 29, 2011 

Perhaps "to which the occupant has no title" from the insured party.

The insured party is the very party who has title to the property, if I understand this one correctly.

15:21 Mar 29, 2011 

can it just not be: "...or to which the insured has no title or deed..."?

15:12 Mar 29, 2011 

Hello Catharine. Soory about the "disagree" which always seems radical. No, the web refs are not necessarily erroneous. But there are a couple fo things to bear in mind.
Refs which are US, (Merriam-Webster) , mention "real estate" and so on, may not be appropriate for the UK context.
There is always the sticky point about a term bein appropriate in a particualr set of coircumsatnces but which may not have exactly the same implications in legal terms and which might be best avoided, to avoid confusion.
It sometimes leads to a rendering which might seem unfamiliar, but which is never the less a better option than using a term which has multiple or different meanings, in part of in whole.

14:56 Mar 29, 2011 

There is a very simple and straightforward explanation for the fact that "occupation sans titre" is actually an insurance issue at all...

A person who fails to pay their rent, in part or in full, can have their lease revoked. In order physically to remove an occupant who has not paid their rent, a court order is required. Usually takes a few month for it to get to court. If the tenant has caught up with arrears and can satisfy the court that their financial situation enables them to remain as a tenant, the tenant may contest the order to have the lease revoked. Once the court order has put an end to the lease, the tenant who remains in the property, who continues to occupy the property will be doing so unlawfully = occupation sans titre ("deedless occupation" if you like, for a temr which does not exist at all, but I guess you know what I mean!). This will apply even if the person continues to pay the rent until they have physically removed their belongings and returned the keys to the owner and that the exit inventory frees finally ends the relationship. Indeed, I cannot recall the term used for the "rent" paid during that time, but it does have a specific term.

13:30 Mar 29, 2011 

not an expert in this field but would think your own interpretation is correct i.e. a "license" holder rather than lease holder as in next bit from Wiki:
"The seminal difference between a lease and a license is that a lease generally provides for regular periodic payments during its term and a specific ending date. If a contract has no ending date then it may be in the form of a perpetual license and still not be a lease."
the other possibility could be a sub-lease situation or Tony may be right and these are just invitees of the tenant or owner. I don't believe they are unlawful though. HTH

13:11 Mar 29, 2011 

'Adverse possession' means it is definitely WITHOUT consent of the true owner. 'Licence' means it is definitely WITH consent. Are you sure which it is? 'Informal occupation' strikes me as more neutral. Or possibly 'unauthorised occupation' although again that would imply no consent.

11:46 Mar 29, 2011 

is that this is followed by a partial derogation specifying that the "occupation précaire, temporaire ou sans titre" shall not exceed 6 months. In my mind this implies that "sans titre" is a lawful occupation of some kind

11:28 Mar 29, 2011 

it nevertheless is still "occupation" (occupation sans titre) so I did rather think it meant "informal occupation" (i.e. neither as owner or lessee but by leave of the owner etc.) which in UK would imply a licence

11:27 Mar 29, 2011 

or similar?

11:23 Mar 29, 2011 

... you are not officially tenant or owner; for example, the partner of a person, but whose own name does not appear on the lease. In simple terms, they have no specific legal entitlement to be there... which is not quite the same as being 'unlawful'!