Suspect tennant is subletting a room

Notmyrealname

OP...

If you're not happy or satisfied, issue a Section 21 and get new tenants.

Dick_Tucker

Mojisola wrote: »

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

So what would you do if say, a tenant had a late teenage child? Get them checked as well?

N79

!!!!!!_Tucker wrote: »

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.

Agree it would not be a sublet. However S15 covers sublets and also cases where the T "parts with possession of......any part of the dwelling house". Do we agree that it would be within the scope of S15 if it was a licence granting exclusive occupancy rights to a room (even if we agree that this would be a very stupid thing to do)? If not, how is that not parting with possession?

Since there is no "standard" lodgers agreement, the contractual rights a lodger has vary enormously. Most lodgers don't even have a licence - just an informal agreement. In such cases, I would agree that there is probably no implied right of exclusive occupation of part of the property and so these would not be forbidden by S15 (but could rrequire permission by a contractual term subject to the usual rules on permission not being unreasonably withheld).

Dick_Tucker

I would bet on it being an informal agreement _ I really can't see any other way of it not being null and void under the circumstances without permission from the landlord.

Mojisola

!!!!!!_Tucker wrote: »

So what would you do if say, a tenant had a late teenage child? Get them checked as well?

I've never thought about it before but I think family is a bit different.

Tenants could let to a complete outsider who could just disappear out of their lives. While they might be legally responsible for him/her, if they don't have the money to put right anything he/she does, it's unfair to the LL.

I think this is yet another example of how important it is to do a lot of research before embarking on being a LL and making sure you know everyone's rights and responsibilities and that you're happy taking them all on.

Dick_Tucker

Mojisola wrote: »

I've never thought about it before but I think family is a bit different.

Tenants could let to a complete outsider who could just disappear out of their lives. While they might be legally responsible for him/her, if they don't have the money to put right anything he/she does, it's unfair to the LL.

I think this is yet another example of how important it is to do a lot of research before embarking on being a LL and making sure you know everyone's rights and responsibilities and that you're happy taking them all on.

Life can be unfair sometimes, but that's why it's important for LL to have insurance and the tenant to pay a deposit. I don’t see how family is that different, every ne’er-do-well, nutter and chav has parents too, a lovely couple can have a !!!!less child who grows up into a !!!!less adult and still love them.

Your last paragraph is spot on by the way, if more potential LLs thought like that it would be easier all round.

Mulder00

Dodgysailor wrote: »

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.

No, that would make it over-crowded, which is illegal (this is in legal terms, not just, I think there's too many people staying there).

In terms of people saying that lodgers should be subject to the same checks as the tenant, why? What about visitors staying for a few weeks? Should they also be checked, because they could do some damage? What if they are staying for a night? Should the landlord start screening anyone setting foot on the property because they could potentially burn the place down?

Where does it stop? Should the tenant ask the landlord permission to keep their furniture, just in case it puts off some prospective tenants/buyers? What about asking the landlord's permission to have a barbeque, because that's quite risky you know?

Taking in lodgers isn't illegal and pose no greater risk than the tenants bringing in an old dodgy TV or something which can cause the place to burn down. Neither of them are illegal and the landlord should let the tenants enjoy their property within the boundaries of the law, but without all this interference.

Dick_Tucker

The word !!!!d out in my post is the one Father Jack said when he was not saying drink or girls!

jamie11

Notmyrealname wrote: »

Mine isn't.

You appear not to understand the important word there, it's 'entitled' look it up if you're unsure about it's meaning.

Once you rent a property to a tenant then the tenant has rights which over ride yours as the owner/landlord.

Get over it.

RabbitMad

!!!!!!_Tucker wrote: »

So what would you do if say, a tenant had a late teenage child? Get them checked as well?

I'd offer my commiserations but there would be little point getting a cadaver credit checked!









(.... I'll get my coat ....)






... But before I do could I suggest the tenants get their child a watch?