Suspect tennant is subletting a room

N79

This is quite simple. S15 of the housing act gives the rules and is an implied term in all assured periodic tenancies. The section has been quoted above but here it is again.

(1)Subject to subsection (3) below, it shall be an implied term of every assured tenancy which is a periodic tenancy that, except with the consent of the landlord, the tenant shall not—
(a)assign the tenancy (in whole or in part); or
(b)sub-let or part with possession of the whole or any part of the dwelling-house let on the tenancy.

So having a lodger would breach this term if the lodger had sole occupancy rights to their room (whether or not it has a lock). Provided the LL can still access the "lodger's" room then there is no breach as possession has not been given up of any part of the dwelling house.

If the T allows L to have exclusive occupation of a room or rooms then the LL could use S8 to try to evict (good luck, in reality there is little chance of a court ordering an eviction). Otherwise there is nothing a LL can do other than use S21 at the earliest legal opportunity if they have concerns.

If the tenancy agreement specifically requires permission to be obtained for a lodger then this should be complied with and such permission should not be unreasonably withheld.

JimmyTheWig

Does everyone agree that the OP at least has the moral right to know who is living in his property?
Any law against him asking them?

Dodgysailor

Thanks for all your responses. I am not trying to be a pain to my tennants in fact I have even change the light bulbs when they have asked me among other silly things like that. My issue is that i want to know who is living in my property. Some comments in the forum imply that my tenant could rent the extra room to say 5 people all sleeping on the floor in matresses and that would be legal. I have heard cases like this and I do not want to end up having this problem.

Dick_Tucker

N79 wrote: »

This is quite simple. S15 of the housing act gives the rules and is an implied term in all assured periodic tenancies. The section has been quoted above but here it is again.

(1)Subject to subsection (3) below, it shall be an implied term of every assured tenancy which is a periodic tenancy that, except with the consent of the landlord, the tenant shall not—
(a)assign the tenancy (in whole or in part); or
(b)sub-let or part with possession of the whole or any part of the dwelling-house let on the tenancy.

So having a lodger would breach this term if the lodger had sole occupancy rights to their room (whether or not it has a lock). Provided the LL can still access the "lodger's" room then there is no breach as possession has not been given up of any part of the dwelling house.

If the T allows L to have exclusive occupation of a room or rooms then the LL could use S8 to try to evict (good luck, in reality there is little chance of a court ordering an eviction). Otherwise there is nothing a LL can do other than use S21 at the earliest legal opportunity if they have concerns.

If the tenancy agreement specifically requires permission to be obtained for a lodger then this should be complied with and such permission should not be unreasonably withheld.

I do not agree with your interpretation and doubt a court would either, .


JTW, LL could ask, it could be a family member for all we know, my cousin stayed with me in my flat while he was in Glasgow for a lengthy course of hospital treatment as the journey home to Coldstream was to much for him.

N79

!!!!!!_Tucker wrote: »

I do not agree with your interpretation and doubt a court would either.

Which bit don't you agree with and why?

Mojisola

Yorkie1 wrote: »

I am not a LL, but if I was then I'd want to know who was living in the property which I owned, and want to assess the risk to my property. The original tenants will, in all likelihood, have been credit checked and referenced. The new person will not have been.

I appreciate that the original tenants remain liable for the rent, so that risk is minimised, and that the deposit is there to cover damages, but nevertheless there is someone whose character isn't known.

This is the bit that would concern me. If it's accepted that a tenant should have to provide references, then why shouldn't any other person who starts living in that property have to go through the same approval system?

Dick_Tucker

N79 wrote: »

Which bit don't you agree with and why?

Because a lodger's agreement is not a sub-let in terms of the act and a lodger has no assignation in terms of the act.

Notmyrealname

jamie11 wrote: »

he is also entitled to allow a LODGER to stay in HIS spare room.

Mine isn't.

Dick_Tucker

Mojisola wrote: »

This is the bit that would concern me. If it's accepted that a tenant should have to provide references, then why shouldn't any other person who starts living in that property have to go through the same approval system?

Because the tenant will be responible for any detriment the lodgers actions cause and will have to pay the full rent etc. anyway; and they have allready been checked!

Mojisola

!!!!!!_Tucker wrote: »

Because the tenant will be responible for any detriment the lodgers actions cause and will have to pay the full rent etc. anyway; and they have allready been checked!

Fortunately I'm not a LL because I would still prefer to know something about a person who was living in my property.