Catching out tenant subletting a room

poppasmurf_bewdley

I'm sure the Landlord would prefer to have Lodger living in the property and getting the full rent paid regularly to not having a Lodger and the rent being paid late or not at all.

may_fair

Voyager2002 wrote: »

This could be serious if you (or your mortgage lender) ever need possession of the flat.A contract between landlord and tenant gives defined rights and obligations to both parties, and makes it reasonably clear how the law should be applied if any problems arise. However, if someone is living in the flat without a contract then resolving any problem becomes a complicated and expensive process, since the courts would first have to establish the status of that person in order to know what rights and obligations they had. Mortgage lenders hate this kind of situation, and would cause a lot of trouble if they knew that this was happening.

If the T is letting a room to a lodger, the lodger's status is an excluded occupier; he can be evicted by T without a court order and, if T were to be evicted, the lodger would be evicted by the court bailiff at the same time. It's not a 'serious' situation as you suggest.; lodgers have very little security of tenure.

may_fair

Pmarmalade wrote: »

My colleague has just recently become a landlord and thinks his tenant is illegally subletting the second room in the flat.

1) It's not 'illegal' - it's not a criminal offence.
2) It's not subletting unless the T has granted exclusive possession of a part/all of the rental property.

Is there a way to prove he is sub-letting? How far can he go without intruding on the tenant's rights during an inspection?

Options for LL:
1) Serve a s.8 notice citing discretionary grounds relating to breach of the tenancy agreement (e.g. a prohibition on sharing possession); apply for possession and most likely not get a possession order.
2) Serve a s.21 notice and get a possession order (after fixed term expires).
3) Speak to T and ask them nicely not to have a lodger.
4) Speak to T and ask whether the lodger could be formalized as a permitted occupier or joint tenant (no obligation for either T or lodger to agree).

may_fair

Jeffrey_Shaw wrote: »

Yes. L's property is being used more intensively and by someone whom L did not permit to occupy.
That's trespass.

No it isn't.

rexmedorum

Jeffrey_Shaw wrote: »

Yes. L's property is being used more intensively and by someone whom L did not permit to occupy.
That's trespass.

Surely trespass it would be only if someboy accessed any of the property with the T's consent (including LL I might add)

RobertoMoir

Jeffrey_Shaw wrote: »

Yes. L's property is being used more intensively and by someone whom L did not permit to occupy.
That's trespass.

Interesting theory. Citation Needed.