tenant has taken in lodger without telling me

tim123456789

julieb1987 wrote: »

What does it say in your actual tenant's tenant agreement? Mine says we cannot sub-let.
!

Taking in a lodger doesn't count as "sub-letting"

Sub-letting is T moving out and renting to a new T.

Mojisola

accountingbod wrote: »

he has taken a security deposit from him as well.

If he's a tenant, what's he doing taking a security deposit off the lodger? Is this just sitting in the tenant's bank account?

A tenant can't put a deposit into one of the schemes, can he?

tim123456789

accountingbod wrote: »

Hi all

I have found out that my tenant has taken in a lodger without telling me.
Firstly, i must say that i don't mind if my tenant wants to share the flat with someone else but he has already had him move in etc.. he has taken a security deposit from him as well.

My concern is that without me knowing, there is someone else who has a key to this property and who i could receive calls from if something needed attention.

Is this something that my tenant should make me aware of? I think it is even just out of courtesy?
I'm going to call him to say something to that effect - 'I dont mind but please let me know.'

So you don't respond to calls from someone that you don't know, why should you, and why should T expect that you would?

OTOH, you could easily get a call from T's parents who have popped in to check the property when he is on holiday. What would you do then?

As to the "insurance" problem that someone mentioned, surely LL insurance is going to cover this case. T could easily have a daytime visitor who causes an insurable loss, so why would the fact that he has a visitor sleeping over make any difference?

You might think that it is rude of him not to have asked/told you but TBH I don't think that (at this point) he has put you into a position that is any different to one without the lodger.

The only issue that is likley to be a problem is if you want to evict T (in the normal course of business, not because of the lodger) as then you will also have to evice L, but untill/unless you get to state, WTP?

jamie11

As far as the lodger is concerned then your tenant is his landlord, any concerns he has should be addressed to your tenant. Lodgers are reasonably easy to get rid of if you have to, he will not gain any extra rights even if your tenant leaves your property. It is normal practice for a landlord to change the lock barrels between tenancies anyway, there is no knowing how many copies of the keys may have been handed out, if you have more than one property the barrels can be used elsewhere.

The security deposit is for your tenant to return when needed, there is no requirement to protect it for a lodger.

tim123456789

Mojisola wrote: »

If he's a tenant, what's he doing taking a security deposit off the lodger? Is this just sitting in the tenant's bank account?

A tenant can't put a deposit into one of the schemes, can he?

lodger's deposits don't need to be protected

(but if T were to draw up a, valid, AST for rental of the property there's no reason why he couldn't protect the deposit)

jamie11

tim123456789 wrote: »

lodger's deposits don't need to be protected

(but if T were to draw up a, valid, AST for rental of the property there's no reason why he couldn't protect the deposit)

He couldn't legally do that Tim. Remember the 'No sub letting ' clause.

tim123456789

jamie11 wrote: »

He couldn't legally do that Tim. Remember the 'No sub letting ' clause.

yes I know that he "shouldn't " do it,

but the deposit company aren't going to be checking, are they?

tim

accountingbod

thanks for the replies.
apart from this he is a long term very tidy tenant who has kept our flat in good order.
im going to call and mention courtesy and that i need that persons derails for emergency. i didnt say there was a problem other than just being told really.
i just wondered if it was something that tenants should normally inform on. my feeling that it was but not sure whether he is obliged to.
thanks for your input.

Kynthia

It's bad form of the tenant not to keep you informed, but considering how many landlords overact and misunderstand the issues of tenants taking on lodger it's not surprsing that many don't. Ignorance is bliss, and all that.

Taking on a lodger is not usually considering sub-letting. Sub-letting is granting 'exclusive possession to another'. A lodger has few rights and only a license to occupy so they should no cause the main landlord any worries or legal difficulties. A lodger can be given reasonable notice to leave, does not have rights to stay and does not have to be evicted by the courts.

The lodger is completly the tenant's responsibility, they are not a joint tenant of the landlord. The tenant is the landlord of the lodger and therefore is responsible for any deposit or contract. Lodger's deposits do not have to be protected. If the lodger does any damage the main landlord will hold their tenant responsible and it is up to the tenant to deal with it, that is why they should also take a deposit. As the main landlord has no contract with the lodger they do not need to evict them along with their tenant, should they wish for them to leave, they have to leave with the tenant. Even if they didn't leave, they wouldn't become a tenant with the associated rights if the main landlord didn't accept any rent from them.
http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/renting_and_leasehold/sharing_and_subletting/lodgers#0

theGrinch

more wear and tear is likely