Bob - there was an item about this matter a few months ago on the regional TV news in the North West. The gist of the item was that owners of empty properties such as schools reckoned that having such tenants helped to greatly reduce the incidence of vandalism and theft. Also the tenants, usually single people, liked having spacious accommodation and for a notably lower rent than they could get elsewhere. The downside for them was that property owners could give them fairly short notice to quit when the buildings came to be sold, demolished or adapted for other uses. During my OS&H role with a local authority over almost 25 years I knew of several major arson attacks on some of its school buildings which had become redundant and left unoccupied for significant periods. If the buildings contained asbestos, especially in the case of 1960s vintage buildings, this caused considerable problems and extra expense when dealing with the burnt out remains. Perhaps if such buildings had been occupied by "guardian" tenants, the likelihood of such attacks might have been averted. Therefore, perhaps such tenancies are a good idea - provided of course that due thought and action is given to necessary changes regarding security and fire precautions for the tenants.

From the reports I have seen about Guardians they are tenants who pay a very small rent to occupy a building that could otherwise run into disrepair or be vandalised, just the fact that the lights are on shows occupancy and by having the central heating on the infrastructure will stay dry and warm, as stated earlier it has its draw backs they can be evicted at very short notice but from the reports I have witnessed some of them live in very nice buildings at a snippet of the actual costs that could be involved.

Alright lets forget about their status; what duties should you have in relation to them. I’d suggest you ask: 1. Is the place safe for them to inhabit ie are they some poor sod sleeping in a sleeping bag in the corner of a half completed building or are they someone housing sitting a nice house or posh (but empty) office building. 2. Are they( the guardians) reliable? Are they likely not to trash the place, try to set fire to it or otherwise hurt themselves or the building?

Thank you for your comments and helpful input My thoughts are that for giving something e.g. somewhere to live for a tenant [or whatever they are called] the owner gets something back e.g. better security so a number of duties are owed by both parties

Ray R has virtually said evything what I was about to say reading down the posts. Tennant (irespective of rent) = Landlord whether a person or organisation (private or public) = Responsibilities under any act associated with landlords. Even more complicated in Scotland with Factors and landlords!