Lodger rather than tenant?

redlady_1

This has given me the best giggles in a long time (no, I don't get out much).

Fridge3

chucknorris wrote: »

Great I am glad you are open to this, however if I am going to jump through some hoops for you, then you are going to pay for it, if £1,000 is too much, ok lets drop it right down to £100, can you manage that much? You won't win anyway but if you imagine that you might, then you could keep the money. But I want my favourite charity (who I do voluntary work for) to benefit from this, they are called 'Last Chance' and are a dog rescue centre based in Kent. This is the benefit that you can't see, your £100 will help desperate dogs that need help. I do home-checks for them when someone adopts a dog around my area.

Also I am not willing to give my (and certainly not my wife's) property addresses to some unknown person on the internet, but I think this can be solved by showing MY (not my wife's) mortgage account statements for my let properties with the address partially (just the number would suffice) blanked out. It will have to be a copy of the deeds and or solicitor's letters concerning the purchase for my house because there is no mortgage on it (I don't suppose you believe that either).

It would be better if we could do this face to face, then I could collect your £100 donation, do you live anywhere near Dorking? Or perhaps someone that you trust does?

What is strange about this is that you find something so simple so hard to believe, I didn't really thank about that until I mentioned it to my wife and she thought it was very odd as there really isn't anything remarkable about us that makes anything 'unbelievable'.

Perhaps there might have been more chance of grooming Wee Willie for the meet with the suggestion that you were young and nubile rather than older and more experienced:rotfl:

chucknorris

Fridge3 wrote: »

Perhaps there might have been more chance of grooming Wee Willie for the meet with the suggestion that you were young and nubile rather than older and more experienced:rotfl:

Pleeease lets not go there

Planner

chucknorris wrote: »

If I rented all but one bedroom of a house out the person(s) would then be a lodger rather than a tenant?

EDIT: Nope, I know realize it would still be a tenancy

The reason I would like to know is that in a few years we are think of spending the winters in Spain and for the following reasons would prefer our house rented:

1. Security against crime
2. Additional income
3. Avoiding paying the full council tax
4. Less chance of damage from leaks etc

As I would only seek to rent our 3 bed house for about 4-5 months it obviously wouldn't be ideal for most renters so we would probably rent it out well below the market rent (say 50-60%) so hopefully we might find someone that it suits. However due to the fact that we would need to avoid any problems regaining possession I would much prefer a lodger to a tenant. So wondered if we locked up one bedroom and rented the rest of the house would this result in a lodger rather than a tenant?

If you are still resident at the time the 'lodger moves in/signs the agreement' i.e. the day before you move to Spain - I would disagree with what you have been told. Housing Act 1988 schedule 2 sets out what can be and canot be a tenancy agremeent. If you arent renting all the house anfd if this is your principle home at the time the 'tenancy' is granted, it certainly isnt an AST agreement.

Not sure what it is - possibly a lodgers agreement or some other type of licence. I would consult with a specialist letting solicitor and get an 'agreement' drawn up.

You can definatley have the last laugh on this thread!

Wee_Willy_Harris

Planner wrote: »

If you are still resident at the time the 'lodger moves in/signs the agreement' i.e. the day before you move to Spain - I would disagree with what you have been told. Housing Act 1988 schedule 2 sets out what can be and canot be a tenancy agremeent. If you arent renting all the house anfd if this is your principle home at the time the 'tenancy' is granted, it certainly isnt an AST agreement.

Not sure what it is - possibly a lodgers agreement or some other type of licence. I would consult with a specialist letting solicitor and get an 'agreement' drawn up.

You can definatley have the last laugh on this thread!

Brilliant... Another "expert". It's schedule 1. Schedule 2 covers grounds for eviction under Section 8.

Paul_the_Painter

Actually spoke to Surrey today, and they have a deal with a couple of local Housing Associations, so no joy from them.

If it was me I'd look at sending an email to locum agencies when you have a property empty, with location, furnishished or not, along with rent and "short let available"

Also look at what hospitals that the property is near.

Doctors aren't actually that fussy, the accommodation provided by NHS Trusts is generally cr*p. When you're 30, you've sort of given up on the whole idea of living in a corridor with a shared kitchen (sometiime bathroom!) almost anything else is better.

Planner

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Brilliant... Another "expert". It's schedule 1. Schedule 2 covers grounds for eviction under Section 8.

Just a typo!

Schedule 1 says what I said!

I take it you where one of the mocking posters? Last laugh on you then!

FATBALLZ

Questions like this do nothing for the reputation of private landlords for being unscrupulous money grabbers who couldn't care less about their tenants welfare I'm afraid. Can you imagine if this was actually a legitimate thing to do? Tenants would become a thing of the past, every landlord would lock some piddly cupboard of their properties and declare their clients as lodgers, further eroding the already weak rights of private renters.

getmore4less

tbs624 wrote: »

Where LL is using property as his/her only or principal home

So I can get a lodger and go on holiday, thats OK?

Planner

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Questions like this do nothing for the reputation of private landlords for being unscrupulous money grabbers who couldn't care less about their tenants welfare I'm afraid. Can you imagine if this was actually a legitimate thing to do? Tenants would become a thing of the past, every landlord would lock some piddly cupboard of their properties and declare their clients as lodgers, further eroding the already weak rights of private renters.

Its actually a combination of 'piddly cupboard' and 'principle home at start of tenancy rather than 'piddly cupboard in isolation! I can imagine landlords doing 'piddly cupboard' but never going to the trouble of 'principle home'!