Lodger rather than tenant?

Planner

getmore4less wrote: »

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

If at the time the 'tenancy' is signed and its your principle home, then the law says fill your boots in the Bahamas, you only have a lodger.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Planner wrote: »

Just a typo!

Schedule 1 says what I said!

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

Oh, I mocked, and will continue to mock, at rediculous suggestions made by "experienced" landlords.

Planner

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Oh, I mocked, and will continue to mock, at rediculous suggestions made by "experienced" landlords.

Dont shot the messanger! I didnt write the Housing Acts! Maybe a letter to your MP with this thread attahced will assist in having them re-wrote to your liking (and interpretation!)? - Until then continue to mock and I will continue to last laugh!

chucknorris

Paul_the_Painter wrote: »

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.

Thank you for your effort Paul

chucknorris

Planner wrote: »

If at the time the 'tenancy' is signed and its your principle home, then the law says fill your boots in the Bahamas, you only have a lodger.

Thanks I will look into that.

Just to clarify for FATBALLZ, this scenerio is as planner says, renting out (or part of it) our main residence at a discount and the 'lodger' who would be well aware of the leaving date. The issue I am addressing is to avoid the 'lodger' staying beyond the agreed date rather than trying to get something over on him/her. Most of our tenants are on periodicals, we prefer that as our tenants enjoy the flexibility and therefore feel comfortable staying longer, most of my tenants have been insitu for more than 3 years.

Wee_Willy_Harris

chucknorris wrote: »

Thanks I will look into that.

Just to clarify for FATBALLZ, this scenerio is as planner says, renting out (or part of it) our main residence at a discount and the 'lodger' who would be well aware of the leaving date. The issue I am addressing is to avoid the 'lodger' staying beyond the agreed date rather than trying to get something over on him/her. Most of our tenants are on periodicals, we prefer that as our tenants enjoy the flexibility and therefore feel comfortable staying longer, most of my tenants have been insitu for more than 3 years.

Look into it well. After all, your first bright idea didn't exactly go the distance and, in case you need reminding, illegal eviction IS a criminal offence which, in extremis, carries a prison term of 2 years.

Planner

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Look into it well. After all, your first bright idea didn't exactly go the distance and, in case you need reminding, illegal eviction IS a criminal offence which, in extremis, carries a prison term of 2 years.

Of course not relevant to occupiers without an AST.

Keep Mocking.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Planner wrote: »

That would be 6 months. What an expert!

Of course not relevant to occupiers without an AST.

Keep Mocking. .

I did say "in extremis". Whilst a magistrate is limited to 6 months, a Crown Court can imprison for up to 2 years.

Quietly mocking.

EDIT... I see, from your edit, that you asked an expert.

Planner

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I did say "in extremis". Whilst a magistrate is limited to 6 months, a Crown Court can imprison for up to 2 years.

Quietly mocking.

EDIT... I see, from your edit, that you asked an expert.

Yes havent you got your PM? Snigger snigger.

chucknorris

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Look into it well. After all, your first bright idea didn't exactly go the distance and, in case you need reminding, illegal eviction IS a criminal offence which, in extremis, carries a prison term of 2 years.

First of all it looks as if 'my first bright idea' as you put it has gone the distance as Planner (thanks planner) has come up with what appears to be a possible workable variation on that theme, which was afterall the whole purpose of the thread.

I am fully aware of the eviction process as 2 years ago I evicted a tenant from one of my flats in Battersea.

Now, moving onto you, I was prepared to let our disagreement go, as indicated by my two posts below:

It might suprise you that I actually agree. I got sucked into something when I should have been big enough to laugh it off and simply walk away. Like you say there are far more important things to get on with.

Is it getting childish and too drawn out? Yes of course it is, I played my part in it too I realize that.


You however have decided to continue with the childish feud. Note that I have not yet said anything derogatory towards you in this post you can decide where we go from here, put it behind us and walk away or continue. Personally I think it's ridiculous, however that doesn't mean I am going to sit quietly while you to keep having digs at me, I will not. It's your decision where we go from here, if you decide to continue just remember in the future that it was you not I that chose that path.