Should I rent out my whole house or on a room basis?

daviesalie_2

Hi

I've been offered a fixed term job for 2 years about 60 miles away from home and commuting isn't an option due to child care. As its fixed term, I'm hoping to move back after 2 years and with the housing market as it is, its not worth me selling my house. So my main question is, should I rent the whole house completely or rent out each room?

I'm considering renting out 2 of the 3 bedrooms, after hearing the horror stories of short term lets. This then gives me the advantage of popping back and fore to check on things.

Are there any tax implications for room shares, as opposed to short term lets?

Would I have to inform my mortgage company if I were to rent out the rooms?

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Ali

McKneff

You have to ASK the mortgage company.

You would be a Landlord and have all the responsibilite of one, ie
Gas safety certificates, landlord insurance etc etc.

Google it, it's not easy as you will see.
To be honest, if its going to be 2 years I would sell it. Why not buy one where you are going to be working.

Excited13

If it is a 3 bed house would it not be better to rent to families? Surely renting out rooms could result in a higher turnover of tennants who may not take as much care as it is a shorter term let.

Yorkie1

If you put 3 unrelated people in (I know you only said 2) then it becomes an HMO, which can be more onerous regulator-wise.

Imagine the hassle of dealing with unrelated tenants - different tenancies, deposits, arguments, etc. I'd let the house as a whole if letting at all. Don't forget all the rules about being a LL, and if it's to be a furnished property your furniture must be fire-compliant.

kidmugsy

We have let our house when work took us away, three times. The first two times we let to people we knew and it went well. The third time we let to strangers: by asking for a below-market rent and choosing where to advertise we arranged that we had a decent choice of tenants. We chose a group all of whom had compelling reasons to vacate the property at just the time that we would return; they proved excellent. But I have to warn you that the whole thing was a huge worry, and that dealing with finances, tax, safety certificates and whatnot is testing. I wouldn't like to do it again.

G_M

Yorkie1 wrote: »

If you put 3 unrelated people in (I know you only said 2) then it becomes an HMO, which can be more onerous regulator-wise.

Imagine the hassle of dealing with unrelated tenants - different tenancies, deposits, arguments, etc. I'd let the house as a whole if letting at all. Don't forget all the rules about being a LL, and if it's to be a furnished property your furniture must be fire-compliant.

I suspect the OP is thinking of continuing to treat the property as his home & keeping one bedroom for himself : "gives me the advantage of popping back and fore to check on things."

Thus making the occupants 'lodgers'.

OP - am I correct?

Whilst if this 'ploy' works it gives distinct advantages, it is debateable if it would work.

The question of 'exclusive occupation' is determined by the fact, NOT by what you write in any contract/agreement.

Have you planned whether to keep utilities in your name? If so - are you concerned about the lodgers running up huge bills while you are away? etc etc

daviesalie_2

Thanks for the advice everyone. I am swaying towards renting the whole house now.

Yes, i was thinking of keeping one of the bedrooms for myself and staying whenever I could.

I suppose I'm still looking at the house as my home and should really be looking at it as an investment for the time being.

I don't really want to sell it, I love the house and the area.