Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • kratosthegreat
    • By kratosthegreat 18th Apr 17, 6:31 PM
    • 115Posts
    • 38Thanks
    kratosthegreat
    Shared Ownership and Lodging
    • #1
    • 18th Apr 17, 6:31 PM
    Shared Ownership and Lodging 18th Apr 17 at 6:31 PM
    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.
Page 1
    • Pixie5740
    • By Pixie5740 18th Apr 17, 8:06 PM
    • 10,073 Posts
    • 13,838 Thanks
    Pixie5740
    • #2
    • 18th Apr 17, 8:06 PM
    • #2
    • 18th Apr 17, 8:06 PM
    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.
    Originally posted by kratosthegreat
    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.
    Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery.
    • Kynthia
    • By Kynthia 18th Apr 17, 8:46 PM
    • 4,861 Posts
    • 6,844 Thanks
    Kynthia
    • #3
    • 18th Apr 17, 8:46 PM
    • #3
    • 18th Apr 17, 8:46 PM
    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!
    • kratosthegreat
    • By kratosthegreat 18th Apr 17, 9:12 PM
    • 115 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    kratosthegreat
    • #4
    • 18th Apr 17, 9:12 PM
    • #4
    • 18th Apr 17, 9:12 PM
    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.
    Originally posted by Pixie5740
    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?
    Last edited by kratosthegreat; 18-04-2017 at 9:22 PM.
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 18th Apr 17, 9:27 PM
    • 2,273 Posts
    • 2,867 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    • #5
    • 18th Apr 17, 9:27 PM
    • #5
    • 18th Apr 17, 9:27 PM
    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.
    • kratosthegreat
    • By kratosthegreat 18th Apr 17, 9:35 PM
    • 115 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    kratosthegreat
    • #6
    • 18th Apr 17, 9:35 PM
    • #6
    • 18th Apr 17, 9:35 PM
    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.
    • Pixie5740
    • By Pixie5740 18th Apr 17, 9:38 PM
    • 10,073 Posts
    • 13,838 Thanks
    Pixie5740
    • #7
    • 18th Apr 17, 9:38 PM
    • #7
    • 18th Apr 17, 9:38 PM
    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.
    Originally posted by kratosthegreat
    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?
    Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery.
    • G_M
    • By G_M 18th Apr 17, 9:41 PM
    • 39,201 Posts
    • 44,541 Thanks
    G_M
    • #8
    • 18th Apr 17, 9:41 PM
    • #8
    • 18th Apr 17, 9:41 PM
    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.
    Originally posted by kratosthegreat
    * New landlords: advice, information & links

    * Letting agents: how should a landlord select or sack?
    • kratosthegreat
    • By kratosthegreat 18th Apr 17, 10:14 PM
    • 115 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    kratosthegreat
    • #9
    • 18th Apr 17, 10:14 PM
    • #9
    • 18th Apr 17, 10:14 PM
    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?
    Originally posted by Pixie5740
    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.
    Last edited by kratosthegreat; 18-04-2017 at 10:19 PM.
    • kratosthegreat
    • By kratosthegreat 19th Apr 17, 7:45 PM
    • 115 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    kratosthegreat
    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
    Originally posted by eggha
    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.
    Last edited by kratosthegreat; 19-04-2017 at 7:50 PM.
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 19th Apr 17, 8:16 PM
    • 2,273 Posts
    • 2,867 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    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.
    Originally posted by kratosthegreat
    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.
    • kratosthegreat
    • By kratosthegreat 19th Apr 17, 8:57 PM
    • 115 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    kratosthegreat
    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.
    Originally posted by Cakeguts
    I have and you can sub-let.
    • kratosthegreat
    • By kratosthegreat 19th Apr 17, 9:10 PM
    • 115 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    kratosthegreat
    On a side note, Shared Ownership has worked out extremely well for me. You find lots of horror stories. That's because people are more willing to write and vent about negative experiences than positive ones. Shared ownership is just as risky as owning a property outright in the sense if it goes down you end up in negative equity and if it goes up you end up in a decent profit.

    Is staircasing expensive? As a fraction of the total property price, not really.

    You have rent to pay, but my mortgage, rent and service charge combined were very reasonable. If you were looking for an equivalent property elsewhere in the city it is in, to rent, I would literally be paying double monthly. Service charge has gone up once in two years.

    And I got what has turned out to be a very high value property with an extremely small deposit.

    The new-build flat has had zero problems and the housing association is very responsive.

    I couldn't rate my own shared ownership experience highly enough, but it should be a property that it always likely to have high demand: is there lots of development in the area? Lots of good jobs nearby? Good Transport link? City centre with private parking? Quality Building? Due diligence is always needed of course.
    • kratosthegreat
    • By kratosthegreat 20th Apr 17, 10:05 PM
    • 115 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    kratosthegreat
    i read the posts in this thread. If you wish to set out your life story and its possibilities across several threads then please make it clear there is continuity in your threads. None of your posts in this thread make mention of staircasing to 100%, they deal only with the inability to sub let and your desire to find a loophole to allow you to break that condition. Meantime you have been told what "main residence" means in reality in the context of the question you asked, and thus why you run several risks by letting it ...

    BTW if you staircase to 100% it is no longer a SO property. My response dealt with it whilst it is SO - if you read it properly
    Originally posted by eggha
    I think you should go back and read post number 7 in which I clearly state I would be purchasing 100% as someone else mentioned tax evasion. You then quoted my post which was in response to Pixie5740 who asked me what was the point of staircasing up to 100% (which was in response to post number 7). That was the context of my post that you quoted - the context that I would have 100% and the reasons for me doing it.

    Do you go always go to the last post of a thread and assume it is in the context of the original post (because those people are really annoying)? Sorry it just seems like you don't like being wrong, and you are wrong. Read the posts. You have failed to read the discussion and the progression and therefore got completely the wrong context. Am I not allowed to first ask about sub-letting under shared ownership then progress the conversation to talk about sub-letting under 100%? Is that not a natural progression, is it completely off-topic? Do I need to start a new thread because you said so? Do one pal.
    Last edited by kratosthegreat; 20-04-2017 at 10:09 PM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,771Posts Today

8,222Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • The strange thing with a 4yr old is having to play & smile while inside feeling sick for those in trauma in my birth town #Manchester

  • Just a quick ta-ta for now. I'm taking the week off for family time with mini and Mrs MSE. So I won't be here much. Back after the bank hol

  • Ugh another one trying it! Beware https://t.co/Ab9fCRA76F

  • Follow Martin