Landlord Misrepresentation

Sommer43

Bit of a tricky one this. Hope someone in the know can help.

Landlord advertises a room on Spareroom. £500 per month, own sitting room.

Lodger moves in, no agreement, gives over weekly rent of £125 and spends three weeks in property before sensing that something isn't correct. Lodger moves out after only three weeks. The owner of the property calls him and tells him the property is hers, she did not even know her separated husband has rented out a room.

Has he misled the tenant?

Land registry check states as the separated partner has stated, that she owns the property. The registered owner of the property has at no time agreed a lodger.

Thoughts please from you wise bunch in the know. This is for my daughter's friend who is now being pursued by this awful man for the full month's rent. I say he has no legal entitlement to the money. I say he has misled the lodger in relaying the property is his. The wife (legal owner was completely understanding and very sensible about the whole affair, she doesn't live in the property and she says there is no money owing but he's still harrassing my daughter's friend)

Kynthia

You don't need to be the owner of a property to take in a lodger, but you do need to live at the property. Your friend's landlord is the husband and that is who she has a contract with. She has no relationship with the wife and shouldn't have any dealings with her.

Sommer43

Hi Kynthia

Thank you for your speedy response. He did live at the property, but claimed the house was his and that he owned the property. The wife called her and asked her if she had lived there.

He told my friend he owned the property, when his wife has said it was not his property to rent out a room and there was no agreement in place between the owner (his wife) and the "landlord" for him to rent out a room. She had no idea that he was renting out the room. He had paid no bills on the property whatsoever and she was now moving back in.

From a legal standpoint, has he not misled her? By advertising the home as his? Surely there must be some right of the lodger to not be misled into believing the property was owned by one person when the legal owner has not agreed to a lodger?

mrginge

Has he misled the lodger?

Probably.

So what?
If the plan is to use this as some leverage to get out of a months rent I wouldn't bother. Instead you could just tell the bloke to do one.

Annisele

You say there's no written agreement. So, for the husband to be able to claim anything in court, he'll have to demonstrate what the verbal agreement was.

Clearly there was some sort of verbal agreement, as money changed hands and your friend stayed in the property. However, I think the husband will have a job to prove a) that the agreement was monthly and b) that your friend was required to give notice before moving out.

If the agreement was monthly, then usually rent would be paid monthly in advance. Weekly in advance suggests (to me) a weekly contract.

Did your friend pay only one lot of £125, or three lots (one for each week they were there)? If they only paid one lot, the husband *may* have a claim for the other £250.

(Also, £125 a week is £542 a month, not £500 - which suggests the contract wasn't as described in the advert. That's all fine and normal, but it makes it more difficult to rely on the advert to show the rent was supposed to be paid monthly).

Kynthia

It doesn't really matter whether he said he owned the property and it doesn't matter whether the owner gave permission for a lodger. It might matter if he didn't have permission to live there himself but there's nothing to indicate that. Your friend has a contract with the husband who is her landlord. She now needs to decide whether to pay an agreed amount (rent or notice) or hope that he doesn't sue for it. I'm not saying which.

JQ.

OP, you are aware that there are many many people who occupy property who are not "the legal owner" as you put it. My father's house is leasehold, technically speaking he has a leasehold interest in the property, whilst the freeholder owns the land - do think he tells people he doesn't own his own house?

What happens between the husband and wife is up to them. Your daughter's friend lived in the house for 3 weeks and was no doubt subject to a weeks notice as she was paying weekly.

No, she has not been misled and yes she does owe the money. Feel free not to pay it, but I'd imagine it would be quite easy to recover the money via smalls claim court.

Sommer43

Annisele wrote: »

You say there's no written agreement. So, for the husband to be able to claim anything in court, he'll have to demonstrate what the verbal agreement was.

Clearly there was some sort of verbal agreement, as money changed hands and your friend stayed in the property. However, I think the husband will have a job to prove a) that the agreement was monthly and b) that your friend was required to give notice before moving out.

If the agreement was monthly, then usually rent would be paid monthly in advance. Weekly in advance suggests (to me) a weekly contract.

Did your friend pay only one lot of £125, or three lots (one for each week they were there)? If they only paid one lot, the husband *may* have a claim for the other £250.

(Also, £125 a week is £542 a month, not £500 - which suggests the contract wasn't as described in the advert. That's all fine and normal, but it makes it more difficult to rely on the advert to show the rent was supposed to be paid monthly).

Thank you Annisele,

She only paid one lot of £125. She asked him for an agreement, he never produced one. (She's only 19) and he began to get somewhat amorous with her.

He's now threatened her with texts that he will go to the police and tell them she has stolen money and two watches. She is now staying with my daughter and her parents are on the way down to her.

Thank you for your guidance on this and everyone else's too. Am just relieved she got out when she did. Her father has now forwarded a cheque for the remaining two weeks rent, although he's still claiming she should pay him two months rent. The wife has become involved now. Just looks like she became wrapped up in a messy separation and he was trying to raise some cash. Very strange set-up.

Sommer43

JQ. wrote: »

OP, you are aware that there are many many people who occupy property who are not "the legal owner" as you put it. My father's house is leasehold, technically speaking he has a leasehold interest in the property, whilst the freeholder owns the land - do think he tells people he doesn't own his own house?

What happens between the husband and wife is up to them. Your daughter's friend lived in the house for 3 weeks and was no doubt subject to a weeks notice as she was paying weekly.

No, she has not been misled and yes she does owe the money. Feel free not to pay it, but I'd imagine it would be quite easy to recover the money via smalls claim court.

I am aware yes. I am also aware of the rent-a-room-scheme and I doubt very much this landlord was going to inform the tax office of his extra income. He didn't want her to have anything legal sent to the address and as he is a undischarged bankrupt seriously in the mire, he was trying to raise some cash and I don't blame him for this. However, he has terrified a young girl and doubt very much that he will be quite so bullying when her father tackles the matter.

Cornucopia

Sommer43 wrote: »

...he began to get somewhat amorous with her...

He has breached any notional tenancy agreement through this behaviour. It's extremely unlikely that he would be able to make a case for non-payment of rent on the basis of the stack of anomalies that is documented here.

Sommer43

Cornucopia

This is a 50 year old man who has behaved in a predatory manner towards this young woman.

My own daughter's landlord is a gem and has agreed that her friend can sleep on the sofa till she sorts herself out. The whole arrangement stank of dodgy when I found out about it.