PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING
Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.Shared Ownership and Lodging
kratosthegreat
Posts: 130 Forumite
Subletting is against the lease on Shared Ownership apartments but what if you have a lodger and you technically live there (all the bills in your name, post delivered there) but you are only actually there say once a month? The rest of the time you are renting elsewhere. And the lodger doesn't have a key to their own room i.e. you can enter. Is that allowed as you have a lodger and are not subletting? What specific things would you need in an agreement?
Extend that further. What if you have two lodgesr, one in each bedroom, and you only stay there once a month on the sofa? Do you have two lodgers or are you subletting?
All hypothetical scenarios.
Extend that further. What if you have two lodgesr, one in each bedroom, and you only stay there once a month on the sofa? Do you have two lodgers or are you subletting?
All hypothetical scenarios.
0
Comments
-
kratosthegreat wrote: »Subletting is against the lease on Shared Ownership apartments but what if you have a lodger and you technically live there (all the bills in your name, post delivered there) but you are only actually there say once a month? The rest of the time you are renting elsewhere. And the lodger doesn't have a key to their own room i.e. you can enter. Is that allowed as you have a lodger and are not subletting? What specific things would you need in an agreement?
Extend that further. What if you have two lodgesr, one in each bedroom, and you only stay there once a month on the sofa? Do you have two lodgers or are you subletting?
All hypothetical scenarios.
Hypothetical you say....
Excluded occupiers, that's lodgers to you and me, share their landlord's main residence. To be a resident landlord you would have to be letting out part of your property that is your only or main home. Having your post delivered there, keeping your name on the utility bills and going back to kip there once a month won't make the property your main residence. Letting out both rooms and going back to kip on the sofa once in a while is really stretching it.
If the person renting the room can be described in law as an assured shorthold tenant with all the rights of an assured shorthold tenant then drawing up a contract saying otherwise will not take away their statutory rights as an assured shorthold tenant.0 -
They can't be lodgers if it isn't your main residence and it sounds like it isn't. Therefore they will be tenants with all the rights they get, and it would take a court order for you to evict them if they didn't leave willingly and you'd legally need to protect their deposit. As you will have sublet to a tenant you will have broken your agreement with your housing association/freeholder. Plus if you have a residential mortgage it's likely you will have broken the contract with them and tgere could be consequences.Don't listen to me, I'm no expert!0
-
Hypothetical you say....
Excluded occupiers, that's lodgers to you and me, share their landlord's main residence. To be a resident landlord you would have to be letting out part of your property that is your only or main home. Having your post delivered there, keeping your name on the utility bills and going back to kip there once a month won't make the property your main residence. Letting out both rooms and going back to kip on the sofa once in a while is really stretching it.
If the person renting the room can be described in law as an assured shorthold tenant with all the rights of an assured shorthold tenant then drawing up a contract saying otherwise will not take away their statutory rights as an assured shorthold tenant.
Good points. So there's no loopholes then, such as a minimum amount of time I would need to be there? What about this - I am in the residence Thursday night, Friday night, Saturday night, Sunday night
In fact I'm fairly certain that would make it my main residence. What if I was there two nights a week? What is the minimum I need to be there to make it my main residence?0 -
You would have to be there longer than your lodgers otherwise you would be a lodger in their main residence. The way round this is not to have any lodgers.0
-
Yeah tax fraud isn't good. I have a better solution. I'm just going to staircase up to 100% and let the flat out. Problem solved.0
-
kratosthegreat wrote: »Yeah tax fraud isn't good. I have a better solution. I'm just going to staircase up to 100% and let the flat out. Problem solved.
What's the point of that if you're going to be paying rent to live somewhere close enough to the shared ownership property that you could split your time between them? Why not stay pt or if you've outgrown the place sell in order to purchase something that does meet your needs?0 -
* New landlords: advice, information & linkskratosthegreat wrote: »Yeah tax fraud isn't good. I have a better solution. I'm just going to staircase up to 100% and let the flat out. Problem solved.
* Letting agents: how should a landlord select or sack?0 -
What's the point of that if you're going to be paying rent to live somewhere close enough to the shared ownership property that you could split your time between them? Why not stay pt or if you've outgrown the place sell in order to purchase something that does meet your needs?
It's an hour and a half commute each way some days, so that's the reason for moving closer.
The reason for holding onto the property is it is in a prime location, walkable to one of the biggest cities in the UK. Major development going on round here. I have private parking and prices are soaring. Rental rates are much higher here than near work (I'd pay about 2/3 of what I receive) and I basically got a bargain on this. It's like a gold mine, I nearly accepted an offer for a decent profit already, but the value has gone up significantly more, so I declined. And I may potentially work near here in the future. It's all in all a much better area than near work.
Renting near work would just improve quality of life significantly.
I am in two minds though. I do sort of just want to sell it. It is up for sale also but it could take many more months. My head is all over the place with it at the minute.0 -
as you have already noted from your lease, your shared ownership property is not intended to allow someone to live elsewhere and still retain the SO property as a rental source. Indeed you'd better check f you are going to breach your rules anyway by not living there full time as many SO properties make it a condition that if you buy/rent elsewhere you must sell the SO property as it is patently no longer your only home and so should be released back to the market for those who actually need it
You failed to read my previous post and the context of my post that you quoted. I can staircase up to 100% and I am free to do whatever I want with it, rent it, sell it for as much profit as I can get, anything I want just like any other property. And I intend to rent it and get one hell of a profit out of it which I know I will do because the value has already skyrocketed in 2 years.
No one 'needs' my flat more than I do, even if I had ten other properties. This is the property market, not an NHS Doctor's appointment and I'm entitled to work my work up to 100% and profit out of it.0 -
kratosthegreat wrote: »You failed to read my previous post and the context of my post that you quoted. I can staircase up to 100% and I am free to do whatever I want with it, rent it, sell it for as much profit as I can get, anything I want just like any other property. And I intend to rent it and get one hell of a profit out of it which I know I will do because the value has already skyrocketed in 2 years.
No one 'needs' my flat more than I do, even if I had ten other properties. This is the property market, not an NHS Doctor's appointment and I'm entitled to work my work up to 100% and profit out of it.
It might not be as simple as that. Because it is a flat you will have a lease from the landlord ( the landlord owns the building that the flat is in.) Some landlords put clauses into leases that say that the flats in their buildings can only be used as the lease holder's home and cannot be sublet to tenants. So you will have to check what your lease from the housing association says about your lease of its flat. These rules apply even if you own 100% of the lease. While you own the lease to this flat the housing association will remain your landlord because they own the building and you will be subject to their rules about leases.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards