Renting to my sister

Jowo_2

Eyesparky wrote: »

If she chose to move back in she would have automatic right of occupancy as her primary residence.

I'm aware of this ground - one where a landlord has previously lived in the property and wants to move back - but not sure if its a mandatory or discretionary one.

Eyesparky wrote: »

keeping the property as her primary residence would cause minimal impact to her credit record (something she is in the process of trying to improve)

as far as I'm aware, it's occupancy that makes a residence a primary one, at least I think that's the official definition. By spending more time at another property, whether or not there is payment, it is their primary residence. That's my understanding of the legal definition but I'm open to a challenge on this.

Eyesparky wrote: »

Re: dodgy landlord practices, we are talking about an arrangement with the OP's sister here so I don't think she is looking to invade their privacy or rifle their sock draw at any opportunity

Yes, this works well with consensual collusion and is entirely different from genuine tenants who are aghast to find their landlords letting themselves into their property to fetch their post or insists that they must include the landlords name on the council tax bill.

Only in a worse case scenario would the sister mount a legal challenge about the status of her occupancy.

I have came across threads from lodgers who have successfully challenged their landlords in court, and the court has found in favour of them, when their landlord has treated them as a lodger (for example, short notice period and then changing the locks) but was proved not to live in the property (hence they were actually tenants and had far more protection against eviction). This has included the tenant being awarded large compensation for being treated as if he was a lodger (he did have a lodgers agreement but the landlady lived somewhere else and just kept a room on in the property and rarely stayed there).

Eyesparky

I am not talking about a landlord situation. The type of tenancy that exists when a primary residence holder has lodgers but moves out of the house for a period (work assignment etc.) is different from an AST. The primary residence holder has total right of occupancy. If she were looking to rent out her house to strangers and move permanently elsewhere then I would agree with you and think that formal AST with property remortgaged to buy to let etc. or consent to let would apply. In this instance, where the OP is looking to reduce her outgoings and improve her financial situation in the short to medium term, personally I would opt for the lodger scenario. This is assuming that the figures make sense of course.

Jowo_2

Okay, but I think this has been debated extensively on Landlordzone and the actual housing law relating to it that makes the occupancy the main thing has been quoted. This did not fill me with any confidence that an owner could even take up a work assignment in another place without it affecting the lodgers status. Am open minded to a challenge on this, perhaps I misremembered.

Where's the artful lodger when you need him?

Eyesparky

I will go and have a read (they redraft legislation so regularly I may be out of date). I seem to remember the distinction is tenant / licensee, with the later applying to a lodger not given sole access to any portion of the property. I will have to break out my Which guide and refresh my memory (that at least should help me get to sleep ). I have no doubt that there are a number of people playing hard and fast in this area but I don't get the impression the OP is intending to be one of them.