Help! Letter to landlord re. taking in a lodger

Guest101

mrginge wrote: »

Taking in a lodger is not subletting

I was paraphrasing what the tenancy agreement might say. I know it's not subletting, but the OP hasnt provided much information.

Thanks for your valuable imput

BitterAndTwisted

It's not subletting if you take in a lodger. I dunno why the OP just finds herself a lodger and carries on paying the rent as usual. Until and unless the rent becomes overdue or unpaid they are unlikely to know or care. Writing a letter to try and end the current tenancy and offering to enter into a new one will just muddy the waters. Which the OP understandably may not want at the present time, all things considered.

mrginge

Guest101 wrote: »

I was paraphrasing what the tenancy agreement might say. I know it's not subletting, but the OP hasnt provided much information.

Thanks for your valuable imput

My input is very valuable in correcting your blatant error.
You're speculating on a tenancy agreement that you haven't seen and even if it didn't allow subletting, that would be irrelevant because as you apparently know, taking a lodger is not subletting.

All of which renders your previous post pointless.

Guest101

mrginge wrote: »

My input is very valuable in correcting your blatant error.
You're speculating on a tenancy agreement that you haven't seen and even if it didn't allow subletting, that would be irrelevant because as you apparently know, taking a lodger is not subletting.

All of which renders your previous post pointless.

And if the lodger then decides not to leave, when the OP wanted to hand in notice. Who would be held responsible?

I agree i was speculating, but it was to explain that there are implications to take a lodger. And if they are stil AST, then the husband would still be liable to pay (well he still is, but now the OP could receive notice)

There's no 'apparently' about it, i do know. The OP may not. The information hasn't been much about the tenancy.

mrginge

Guest101 wrote: »

And if the lodger then decides not to leave, when the OP wanted to hand in notice. Who would be held responsible?

Lodger gets kicked out. Simple as.

Guest101

mrginge wrote: »

Lodger gets kicked out. Simple as.

Yes but it's not that simple, because the LL cannot remove him, he has to get a court order, because i don't believe the new criminal tresspassing laws re squatters would apply if the lodger can prove he was paying rent.

G_M

Guest101 wrote: »

I think if they are outside of the AST, the landlord could just do a new agreement to include the new person, once checks are carried out.

But if they are stil FT, then no chance.

Where to start...?

* It's still an AST, whether within Fixed Term or a subesquent Periodic (which is what I assume you mean by "outside of the AST"...)

* Landlord could just as easily do a new agreement whether the AST is currently still within the FT, oris Periodic. The question is whether he would want to do a new agreement (with new tenant(s) named.

Guest101

G_M wrote: »

Where to start...?

* It's still an AST, whether within Fixed Term or a subesquent Periodic (which is what I assume you mean by "outside of the AST"...) Yes i meant to say outside the FT of the AST

* Landlord could just as easily do a new agreement whether the AST is currently still within the FT, oris Periodic. The question is whether he would want to do a new agreement (with new tenant(s) named. Yes i meant the LL is not inclined to change an AST when the husband would still be liable

Yes i meant outside the FT portion of the AST

mrginge

Guest101 wrote: »

Yes but it's not that simple, because the LL cannot remove him, he has to get a court order, because i don't believe the new criminal tresspassing laws re squatters would apply if the lodger can prove he was paying rent.

Well it is.

Who is this lodger paying rent to? Not the LL.
Who does the lodger have *any* kind of agreement with? Not the LL.

What makes you think that the lodger has greater protection from the LL kicking them out than they would from the OP?

Guest101

mrginge wrote: »

Well it is.

Who is this lodger paying rent to? Not the LL.
Who does the lodger have *any* kind of agreement with? Not the LL.

What makes you think that the lodger has greater protection from the LL kicking them out than they would from the OP?

I didn't say greater protection. Are you suggesting the LL would physically assault the lodger to remove him? (who is completely innocent just by the way!)