Rights of excluded tenants

someanonbloke

Hi, I sublet rooms to tenants. I always state clearly in the contract that they're 'excluded' tenants. In the contract, I also state all the obvious things like paying rent on time, bills, and 1 month's notice from each party should either party wish to end the contract.

Now, tenant X wants to leave the property whereupon I said that was fine with one month's notice from today. X is paid up til end of May.

But, X wants to leave now with all his rent money reimbursed for the remaining time.

I'm trying to explain this is not how things work.

The thing is, once he leaves, and I give him the deposit back and he returns the keys, that's it, isn't it? The fact he's paid up til end of May becomes irrelevant as soon as I return the deposit.

G_M

someanonbloke wrote: »

Hi, I sublet rooms to tenants. I always state clearly in the contract that they're 'excluded' tenants. In the contract, I also state......

1) No such thing as 'excluded tenant'.
2) What you write in the contract is irrelevant. Their staus is determined by the facts, not by your dodgy words.

What do you mean 'sublet'?
Do you live in the property with them? Share accomodation? If so, they are probobly 'Excluded Occupiers' not tenants at all.
If not, they are tenants, whatever you call them.

Please clarify the exact set-up.
And/or use Shelter's 'Tenancy Checker' here.

tbs624

Your terminology is a tad confused OP.

If you are a resident LL sharing your property via the letting off of bedrooms with shared use of the rest of the property then the "excluded" tenants are in fact lodgers (who have the status of "excluded occupiers")

If you have agreed that each party should give the other one month's notice (presumably because rent gets paid monthly) then both parties should stick to that. However, you may want to consider reaching a compromise as there is nothing worse than having to share your home with someone who does not want to be there.

You could tell him you're happy for him to leave now and that there will be no request for more rent to cover a full month's notice but equally there will be no rent rebate for the rent already paid to cover up until May.

If you managed to get another lodger before the end of the month you could offer to make a partial refund, allowing for the costs of re-advertising etc.

someanonbloke

Yes, I meant to say 'excluded occupier'.

What do you mean 'sublet'?

It means exactly what it says, which is why I stated it. I'm subletting with the owner's express permission. Your pedantic attitude doesn't help!

As I stated, 'excluded occupier X' wants to leave now with all rent reimbursed. Strictly speaking he owes more rent because he was supposed to give one month's notice i.e up til mid-June.

If either party (X and myself) had managed to organise a replacement to take over X on his departure, then there'd be nothing to discuss but, no such arrangement has been made.

So, both parties are in disagreement. So, we now have to go to what the original contract stated, which is 1 month. Obviously, the reason for this is so that if I have to ask someone to leave, I can't just throw them out on the street, I have to give them one month's notice by law. And guess what, this works the other way too: someone can't just decide to leave at a moment's notice leaving me to sort out the mess.

However, according to GM, this seems to be dodgy!?

Anyway, I was just seeking confirmation, which tbs624 has given me.

RAS

If these are lodgers then there is no legal requirement for notice on either side, just that reasonable notice be given. In some instances that might be 24 hours.

However if you both signed a contract requiring each side to give one month's notice you could try and enforce that through the small claims court but mayor may not win. Equally the lodger could sue you and may or may not win.

00ec25

someanonbloke wrote: »

Yes, I meant to say 'excluded occupier'.but you didn't, you said tenant and more than once

It means exactly what it says, which is why I stated it. I'm subletting with the owner's express permission. Your pedantic attitude doesn't help!.

you are asking for advice about matters of law, law is ALL about technicalities, pedantry is vital

your OP implied either than you did not know what your were talking about or you were (as seems to be the case now) careless in the use of your wording. Either way GM raised a very necessary, not pedantic, challenge to what you meant by sublet as that is often used (incorrectly) by people talking about lodgers but has a quite different (correct) meaning.

as RAS says, IF you have a signed contract then you have the basis for a contractual dispute over breach of a contract that both parties have agreed to, but would need to go to court to win the argument.

If you do not have a signed contract then there is, as stated, no such thing as a 1 month notice period for an excluded occupier, the law refers only to "reasonable" notice (for either party!).

someanonbloke

AFAIK, the required notice is the same time period as the billing cycle i.e. monthly. Furthermore, I've stipulated that one month's notice has to be given in the contract.

According to Shelter, I've done everything right.

RAS

Shelter's lodging agreeement covers best practice, not law.

There is no legal requirement for the notice for a lodger to be the same as the billing period.

I would suggest that any attempt by the lodger to reclaim the rent paid would be likely to fail because of the contract (assuming it is signed by both parties) but would not like to guess which way things would go if you tried to claim the whole one month's rental income from the date of notice. Not sure if there is any precedent.

princeofpounds

Your pedantic attitude doesn't help!

Yes it absolutely does help. Because being precise is what stops messy situations like this and clears them up when they develop.

someanonbloke

but would not like to guess which way things would go if you tried to claim the whole one month's rental income from the date of notice.

I have the deposit( 1 month's rent), which gets returned on the day X departs the property. I could claim the rest of the rent off that. (I'm not saying I will necessarily do that, but it'd be within my rights to do so.)

someanonbloke

"If you do not live in the property or at any time occupants were there you did not reside there then they have an AST regardless of whatever paperwork you've cooked up." Well, I do live in the property and so your point is irrelevant.

I live in England.

I love the way that the tone of most (not all) the posts is that I'm somehow wrong by default. There's no acknowledgement that this is the place I live and that I don't have other housing options. Yes, there is a theoretical house/property/mansion somewhere else but it's not mine...I don't own it and can't afford it. This is my living situation. The owner won't allow me to sort out an individual rent for one of the rooms and so I have to sublet.

To all you 1000+ posters, rather than casting aspersions on people asking for help and providing 'after the fact' solutions, go tend the garden or volunteer at the charity shop, and leave the forums to people who actually want to help.