Help! Letter to landlord re. taking in a lodger

mrginge

Guest101 wrote: »

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!)

Of course you did.

The OP could have a lodger removed at any time (with reasonable notice). Yet you seem to think that if the OP were to give their notice and subsequently move out, that this lodger can then only be evicted by the LL going to court.

And as for this garbage about physically assaulting them, well you've just gone from general incompetance to utter drivel. I can't wait for your next installment of trolling.

rrtt

Just a general observation - we're all posting cos we're either in need of some advice or just helpful people passing on our experiences, right? We're not all professionals with expertise in the relevant areas (tho some are of course). Correcting wrong info is fine, but I just don't see the need for downright rudeness to be honest ... I mean why do it, what's the point?

Guest101

mrginge wrote: »

Of course you did.

The OP could have a lodger removed at any time (with reasonable notice). Yet you seem to think that if the OP were to give their notice and subsequently move out, that this lodger can then only be evicted by the LL going to court.

And as for this garbage about physically assaulting them, well you've just gone from general incompetance to utter drivel. I can't wait for your next installment of trolling.

In an ideal world, yes, they would leave given notice. But let's say they don't. Lets say they refuse to leave, what then?

It's a civil matter, the police wont get involved. So what next? Oh that's right the courts.

I didn't say only, I said the lodger could be awkward.

It seems like you were suggested the landlord would evict without the courts, which would suggest physically removing the lodger, aka assault.

mrginge

Guest101 wrote: »

In an ideal world, yes, they would leave given notice. But let's say they don't. Lets say they refuse to leave, what then?

It's a civil matter, the police wont get involved. So what next? Oh that's right the courts.

I didn't say only, I said the lodger could be awkward.

It seems like you were suggested the landlord would evict without the courts, which would suggest physically removing the lodger, aka assault.

You're wrong.

Guest101

mrginge wrote: »

You're wrong.

Ok then... what am i wrong about?

mrginge

Guest101 wrote: »

Ok then... what am i wrong about?

Explain to me what rights a lodger has and how someone who had a lodger would go about evicting them if they refused to leave.

Guest101

mrginge wrote: »

Explain to me what rights a lodger has and how someone who had a lodger would go about evicting them if they refused to leave.

Well you're so adament i'm wrong, i'd love to see you clear it up.

But then you'll accuse me of not knowing.

It would depend if the Lodger is considered an excluded occupier. Basically, in most cases of lodgers, this would apply. For which an eviction, in legal terms requires no court order.

However, this applies to such points as changing the locks, or removing property. The can be no force, or threat of force, used to evict the person.

It is good practice to get a court order, which must be granted, if 'reasonable notice' was served.

You said and i quote 'lodger gets kicked out' - well that implies use of physical force to remove him. Which would leave the LL open to criminal charges.

mrginge

Now i'm confused. Last post you said evicting an excluded occupier didn't need a court order. But previously you said this -

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.

Does this mean that the lodger is now not an excluded occupier?
If so how did this happen?
Does the agreement (if one exists) that this lodger had with the OP simply transfer over to the LL when the OP moves out?
If the lodger had paid a deposit to the OP, would the LL then have to recover this and register it?

I'm off to bed now, but might pick this back up in the morning if i can be bothered. If not, thanks and feel free to have the last word. Been most entertaining.:)

Guest101

mrginge wrote: »

Now i'm confused. Last post you said evicting an excluded occupier didn't need a court order. But previously you said this -



Does this mean that the lodger is now not an excluded occupier?
If so how did this happen?
Does the agreement (if one exists) that this lodger had with the OP simply transfer over to the LL when the OP moves out?
If the lodger had paid a deposit to the OP, would the LL then have to recover this and register it?

I'm off to bed now, but might pick this back up in the morning if i can be bothered. If not, thanks and feel free to have the last word. Been most entertaining.:)

Maybe there's been some confusion. i didn't mean the act of changing locks etc. I literally mean the act of removing the lodger, the physical person. Which is where the difficulty would arise.

But i do think things have got abit twisted and lost in perception along the way.

Reue

Why bother taking his name off the AST? Better to keep him on it so he is (as he should be) jointly liable for rent should you not be able to afford it on your own.

Take in a lodger (not subletting) if you need help with the rent. No legal requirement to inform your landlord iirc, just be aware that you will be responsible for any damage they might cause.

Worst case; Landlord finds out you have a lodger and seeks to evict you. As you cant afford the rent on your own anyway you move out to somewhere cheaper.