Suspect tennant is subletting a room

jamie11

RabbitMad wrote: »

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

Commiserations are probably more needed if they have a live teenager.

BritRael

N79 wrote: »

Which bit don't you agree with and why?

For me, this bit:-

"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."


It does not mention 'access', it mentions 'possession'. Surely, if someone is living in a room, they are possessing it?
Also, your two sentences contradict each other. In the first the lodger would be in breach with a lock. The second he is not in breach if access is available. How does the LL have access if the room is locked??

(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.

N79

BritRael wrote: »

For me, this bit:-

"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."


It does not mention 'access', it mentions 'possession'. Surely, if someone is living in a room, they are possessing it?

No, the definition of possession is the exclusive occupation of a property (or part thereof). By definition, if the T can access Lodger's room without permission (subject to normal considerations of privacy of course) then the lodger does not have possession

BritRael wrote: »

Also, your two sentences contradict each other.

No, they don't but I can see how they could have been worded better.

BritRael wrote: »

In the first the lodger would be in breach with a lock. The second he is not in breach if access is available. How does the LL have access if the room is locked??

Having a lock on the door does not mean that a T has exclusive occupation (or possession) as the LL may have a key and the right to use it. The existence of a lock is only suggestive, not conclusive. What is key is the rights of the LL and Lodger. Does the LL have right of access or not? If yes, Lodger does not have possession.

Of course, even if there is a lock and the LL does not have a key the LL could still have a right of entry - so no T possession. So my wording regarding the existence of a lock was confusing.

DRP

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

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?

absolutely.

And the right to be pretty peeved if his tenants have taken a lodger.

Notmyrealname

jamie11 wrote: »

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.

And I can issue a Section 21 for whatever reason I damned well choose.

Get over it.