Tenancy Agreement - Overnight Guests

Callstar027

Hi I was just wondering if anyone could help me. I have paid a holding fee on a bedroom in a shared property (three bed property) with communal kitchen and bathroom. My (potential) landlord has emailed me the tenancy agreement, all is fine bar this one provision which stipulates:

"Not to let or purport to share any rooms at the property or take in any lodger or paying guest or without the prior written consent of the owner or permit any person to stay at the property without such consent."

Obviously the no letting/subletting/allowing lodgers is acceptable and a standard aspect of tenancy agreements. But I am unsure over the latter half of this clause. I emailed the landlord questioning it querying the section that stipulates that I am not, "without prior consent of the owner" permitted to allow "any person to stay in the property" without such consent. This seems to suggest that I would not be permitted to allow friends, family or a partner to spend a night, or two, on an informal non-monetary basis without consent????

To which they replied:
as far as friends staying go- i am very clear on this point as i am not registered as and HMO. but of courts the occasional guest is ok. weekenders though would be a problem.

However, I still find this response unsatisfactory and think this is unreasonable. I'm not talking about a boyfriend or friends staying every weekend merely the occasional weekend visit by a friend. With no financial transactions.

Any advice would be very much greatfuly received. If you can point me to a legal document, case or act to view this would be excellent.

Fire_Fox

Welcome! You would need to check with your housemates as much as your landlord, they may not want someone staying for an entire weekend. If HMO registration is required it is not unreasonable for your landlord to be cautious. Maybe seek clarification from the local council about how often there can be fourth person visiting without needing to be registered? HMO rules vary from council to council thee is no one system, but it can certainly be three unrelated people in one property.

G_M

I believe the word 'stay' in this context relates to longer term than an overnight guest. It is used in conjunction with the other terms (let, lodger etc) to prohibit others taking up residence.

If you have an AST, this is your home. You can treat it as such without interference (quiet enjoyment). The LL cannot prohibit your boy/girlfriend staying, whether for a night or two, or a weekend. He can prohibit her moving in with you - whether she pays you rent or not.

As Firefox says, more relevant than the prohibitions imposed by the LL are the practicalities of house-sharing. You don't want to fall out with them, so discuss/agree.

My advice would be to NOT pursue this with the LL, you'll just stir up a hornets nest. Just get the housemates on side and then invite your guests over (and don't take the micky...)

Callstar027

Thank you both for your help.

I would just like to question what you think she means by "weekenders" being a problem. Would you say this means referring to people staying every weekend?

I have basically been under the same impression/taken the same understanding as that you have provided but have found this clause somewhat of a curve ball, having never encountered such in any of my former tenancies. It would be reasonable to say therefore that I am permitted to have occasional guests stay with me, which would evidently best be passed via my housemates first, but should I wish to have a friend or someone 'stay' or occupy the property with me I would need written permission from my LL. A guest does not constitute an occupier and would not affect the HMO status (I will have a more detailed look on my council site - nothing so far though).

Fire_Fox

We can't tell you what the landlord means, I take that as a whole weekend though - Friday to Monday -which many housemates wouldn't like anyway. HMO legislation is not the same in every local authority, and some landlords are more wary than others.

What is a guest and what is an occupier is not strictly defined in law nor in common parlance, many people spend every night with their partners (three to four at each home) don't consider themselves living together because they have their own homes. By contrast the DWP/ council can deem people to be living together for benefits purposes if they keep belongings in one another's home and do grocery shopping and cooking together. Given that the landlord's sole concern is the HMO legislation it makes sense to me to fire off an e-mail to the council.

G_M

What exactly are you planning?

As I said, my instinct if you just want your partner to stay over for the odd night or weekend is to

NOT pursue this with the LL, you'll just stir up a hornets nest. Just get the housemates on side and then invite your guests over

Start pressing the LL for strict definitions (exactly how many nights per week/consecutive nights/etc) and what you'll get is.... strict definitions!

But as said, there are other factors: is the person registered eleswhere for council tax/voting? Do they pay rent elsewhere? Where do their bank statements get sent? All these are indicative of where they are 'resident'.

Of course, if what you are planning is for your partner, currently living with parents, to come and visit, stay the week, and then carry on, just popping home to mum and dad every so often, then you're out of order. Though thinking about it, if that is your intention, the last thing you should do is push for definitions from the LL which you'll clearly not fit in with!

princeofpounds

It's an unenforceable clause and has no legal validity.

Landlords cannot prevent you having temporary guests, all they can do is refuse to renew your tenancy on expiry if they find out.

They would even practically-speaking find it hard to stop you having a permanent guest, as getting sufficient evidence and grounds for an injunction or early tenancy termination would be a huge task.

The landlord sounds like they are worried about being considered an HMO and having a clause like this is an attempt to avoid that. Plus exercise a little control.

An unfair clause like this basically doesn't exist as far as the law is concerned, so you won't get into legal trouble if you sign and then have visitors. I'd be more worried about what your housemates think.

Callstar027

G_M - as you indicate, merely the ability to have a friend or my mum(!) stay over for a day or two every once in a while. Definately no sneaky intentions, just want to know I can enjoy living there, don't want to think that ipf I have a friend staying over and they have a drink too many and can't drive home etc that I would have to ring up my LL gone 1am to request permission. I don't do this with my parents now so the idea of doing it for a LL seems preposterous.

I will leave the topic alone with my landlord, as you say, I don't want to draw further attention to this area. I think the clause, as pointed out by princeofpounds, has more to do with HMOs etc, its just poorly executed and open to confusing interpretation. Or maybe I'm just making mountains out of mole hills...

Cheers for all your help.

CIS

The landlord sounds like they are worried about being considered an HMO and having a clause like this is an attempt to avoid that. Plus exercise a little control.

He may be trying to get around the HMO regulations for licensing but it is clearly a HMO for council tax purposes which makes the landlord liable for any council tax due on the property.

Wyndham

I'd take 'weekenders' to mean 'every weekend'. I.e. if you have someone stay one weekend that's fine, but not if you have someone the next weekend and the one after that etc.

But, first of all, how would the landlord know? And second of all, how would they enforce it?

Fire_Fox

CIS wrote: »

He may be trying to get around the HMO regulations for licensing but it is clearly a HMO for council tax purposes which makes the landlord liable for any council tax due on the property.

May I ask why? Not doubting you, just wish to learn/ check my understanding. Is that because the OP indicated the room was advertised separately and *may* have a separate tenancy agreement?