Lodging - Is this allowed?

Bravehearted_2

Scenario of brother at uni below.

A landlord rents out rooms in a shared house (basically 3 professionals or students renting a room each in a house).

The landlord keeps one room for herself unrented - but never actually stays there. She lives with her parents or boyfriend or something.

Occupants have standard lodger agreements.

Lodging requires the landlord to live there - is she fulfiling this by simply having a room there; even if she doesn't stay there?

Is this allowed/legal? Or is she cutting corners and preventing them from having the security and rights of proper tenancy?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Bravehearted wrote: »

The landlord keeps one room for herself unrented - but never actually stays there. She lives with her parents or boyfriend or something

It's a grey area, and in and of itself is probably not the deciding factor.

The fact that she has a room available for sole and exclusive use is not enough to prove she lives there. The fact that she is rarely or never there in recent times is not enough to prove she doesn't live there.

For example, I could rent a room in my house and then decide to go travelling around the world for several years, and still have that house classed as my primary residence. Or go to look after sick parents for a year or two and still have that house classed as my primary residence.

The key thing is intent.... Do you intend your absence to be "temporary" in nature, and do you intend to resume living in the house when you finally stop doing whatever it is you are doing temporarily elsewhere? (And realise "temporarily" can mean weeks, months or even years, depending on circumstances)

Whether that temporary thing elsewhere is travelling, looking after sick relatives, or shagging your boyfriend isn't of much relevance.

If you have settled elsewhere though and changed your residence legally, which can be demonstrated through voting registration, postal address, etc... Then it's likely your intent to return within a timeframe where a "temporary absence" can be established has changed, and that's then a different matter.

Why does this matter to you though? Beyond just being nosy about other people's business....

Strapped

Bravehearted wrote: »

Scenario of brother at uni below.

A landlord rents out rooms in a shared house (basically 3 professionals or students renting a room each in a house).

The landlord keeps one room for herself unrented - but never actually stays there. She lives with her parents or boyfriend or something.

Occupants have standard lodger agreements.

Lodging requires the landlord to live there - is she fulfiling this by simply having a room there; even if she doesn't stay there?

Is this allowed/legal? Or is she cutting corners and preventing them from having the security and rights of proper tenancy?

It's allowed, as above. If they want "a proper tenancy" then they have the option of moving out and getting one. It may cost more of course. No doubt the LL doesn't want to rent out the house to tenants, hence the keeping a room. Maybe an escape plan if it doesn't work out with the boyfriend. You'd think that lodgers would actually be glad to see not much of the LL, so long as she is in contact for any maintainence that crop ups.

Bravehearted_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Why does this matter to you though? Beyond just being nosy about other people's business....

It matters to me because I want to ensure that my brother isn't party to a housing agreement that is anything less than legal. How is genuine concern considered as being nosy about other people's business?

Would rather be sure - which I am now - than have him taken advantage of.

agrinnall

Is the landlord paying either all the council tax herself or an equal share to that of the lodgers who are eligible for CT? If so then as far as the council is concerned the property would appear to be her main residence.

CIS

Is the landlord paying either all the council tax herself or an equal share to that of the lodgers who are eligible for CT? If so then as far as the council is concerned the property would appear to be her main residence.

Its not that easy - the property is an HMO so the landlord is liable irrespective of whether they are resident.

G_M

Bravehearted wrote: »

It matters to me because I want to ensure that my brother isn't party to a housing agreement that is anything less than legal. How is genuine concern considered as being nosy about other people's business?

Would rather be sure - which I am now - than have him taken advantage of.

Either this is the LL's primary residence, in which case he is a lodger. Perfectly legal. Though as a lodger he has few rights.

Or it is in fact not LL's primary residence, in which case he is a tenant, with greater rights, but the LL has not acknowledged/accepted that.

Only a court could ultimately decide which, on the basis of evidence as outlined above.

But both lodger and tenant are 'legal'.

Whose name is on utility bills? Phone? Council tax? Are bills included in rent? Does LL provide/contribute to general costs (loo roll, cleaning materials, etc - indication of residence); how is kitchen arranged (shared stuff? each with own cupboard? Does LL have cupboard too?) Does LL receive official post (bank statements, tax codes etc) at the property?

Harder to find out is the set up where LL 'lives' : registered there for council tax? for banking etc?

catieeb06

Could it be that the landlord has in reality created a HMO, however doesn't have permission from the lender and has therefore invited several lodgers to live in the property therefore not requiring CTL or transferring onto a BTL mortgage?

Badger_Lady

catieeb06 wrote: »

Could it be that the landlord has in reality created a HMO, however doesn't have permission from the lender and has therefore invited several lodgers to live in the property therefore not requiring CTL or transferring onto a BTL mortgage?

Could well be but again - so what? If the mortgage lender finds out and wants to do something about it, fine. Still doesn't make any real world difference to OP's brother.

If the LL starts being unfair or unreasonable to your brother, stick your nose in. Until then it's all cool.

Ulfar

The difference between being a lodger or a tenant, does have significant implication for the OP's brother.

Firstly notice to leave is completely different. Council tax liability, if the LL is maintaining that this is her primary residence then she should be paying some of this.

If her boyfriend is claiming benefits potentially the brother and other lodgers could be accessories to benefit fraud.

How about the LL is claiming sole occupancy and getting a discount on council tax.

If the property is an HMO then there are more stringent rules to follow.

CIS

Council tax liability, if the LL is maintaining that this is her primary residence then she should be paying some of this.

Legally, all of it.