tenant has taken in lodger without telling me

Mr_Pitiful

Kynthia wrote: »

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.

A situation where that wouldn't apply is if the mesne tenant surrenders the tenancy with the agreement of the head landlord. In that example any contract given to the lodger will be binding on the head landlord.

jamie11

Mr_Pitiful wrote: »

A situation where that wouldn't apply is if the mesne tenant surrenders the tenancy with the agreement of the head landlord. In that example any contract given to the lodger will be binding on the head landlord.

Eh? What are you talking about? A lodger cannot be granted extra rights by the tenant that is his immediate landlord.

mrginge

Mr_Pitiful wrote: »

A situation where that wouldn't apply is if the mesne tenant surrenders the tenancy with the agreement of the head landlord. In that example any contract given to the lodger will be binding on the head landlord.

Total rubbish. Please ignore.

ruggedtoast

One of my family members rents out a house to a nice Latvian chap. She knows he has more people in there than just himself but the place is always spotless when she goes round and he pays the rent on time each month.

She says she would rather turn a blind eye as she doesnt want to have obligations for two more tenants.

Mr_Pitiful

jamie11 wrote: »

Eh? What are you talking about? A lodger cannot be granted extra rights by the tenant that is his immediate landlord.

He would not be granted extra rights by his landlord (mesne landlord). He would have exactly the same rights he had. When a mesne tenancy is ended by notice to quit the sub-tenancy automatically ends. The issue arrises when a tenancy is surrendered rather than determined by notice to quit. When a surrender is agreed it doesn't end any sub-tenancy granted by the mesne landlord. The sub-tenancy can be determined by valid notice to quit from the head landlord.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/1118.html&query=Pennell+v+Payne&method=all#disp1

Here is an extract if you don't wish to read the whole case:

If a tenant surrenders his tenancy to the landlord, that too will put an end to the existence of the tenancy. But it will not, in so doing, bring to an end sub-tenancies that the tenant had previously granted. That is a crucial distinction between the result of bringing a tenancy to an end by notice to quit and bringing the tenancy to an end by surrender. The notice to quit, being essentially a unilateral act whether served by the landlord or served by the tenant, brings the tenancy to an end in accordance with the terms of the tenancy itself. Accordingly an interest granted out of the tenancy, such as a sub-tenancy, comes to an end with the determination of the tenancy. Surrender, however, is not a unilateral transaction. A surrender may be express, by deed to which both landlord and tenant are parties, or may be implied by law from acts done by the landlord and the tenant respectively. Whether express or implied, a surrender is essentially a consensual transaction. The parties agree to bring about the termination of the tenancy. The distinction between a surrender and a notice to quit is, in my view, essentially the difference between a consensual act, the surrender, and a unilateral act, the notice to quit.

mrginge wrote:

Total rubbish. Please ignore.

Well done on your compelling argument.

jamie11

Mr_Pitiful wrote: »

He would not be granted extra rights by his landlord (mesne landlord). He would have exactly the same rights he had. When a mesne tenancy is ended by notice to quit the sub-tenancy automatically ends. The issue arrises when a tenancy is surrendered rather than determined by notice to quit. When a surrender is agreed it doesn't end any sub-tenancy granted by the mesne landlord. The sub-tenancy can be determined by valid notice to quit from the head landlord.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/1118.html&query=Pennell+v+Payne&method=all#disp1

Here is an extract if you don't wish to read the whole case:

You are mistaken, I'm not going to argue with you but the scenario you have put up is about a completely different situation, where a leaseholder rents out a property he is leasing, it is not about lodgers.

spcustomer

In the part of landlord and tenant law that refers to the 1977 rent act a tenant who makes a profit out of renting out even one room can be evicted because of the profit.