Renting part of the granny annex

Guest101

taffer87 wrote: »

I don't agree with the lodger can install his own extractor fan - this requies an outside outlet - a physical change to the nature of the building. - I didnt say that?

So where does it say that a lodger must have access to shared living facilities at all times? If a lodger and I agree reasonable times - whether its 20% or 40% of the time - i can't see how its a problem. I suspect you are conjecturing / giving your opinion on this but saying it in a way to make it look like a fact. What's the source / case law? Even the university guide you posted said shared kitchen times etc should be agreed upfront. - If you had a lodger, and you agreed reasonable times, e.g. I normally cook at 7pm, could you work around that, then yes i agree with you. I suspect, though i admit i couldvnt quote you a case (possibly because there isnt one) that it would not be reasonable to exclude the lodger from the shared areas for 22 out of 24 hours on 5 days of the week. I am giving you my interpretation of the law/guidance, by all means feel free to pay for legal advice.

I could supplement it with using the annex washroom for guests etc as its in the ground floor. -Not if its a tenancy and his property, he could remove you from it.

Plus i could provide services like cleaning - clean bed sheet - cereal and milk. -You can, but this alone wont constitute a license to occupy.

On the basis of my reading of the law all of the above combined should give me sufficient protection (not just in agreements but actually implementing them). Of course, only case law can confirm which is extremely unlikely anyway. -On the basis of your understanding, i wish you the best of luck. I suspect strongly that this is a tenancy, that what you have suggested will cause harassment to the tenant and when they enforce their rights, you will inadvertently illegally evict them. You will then be sued for £X,000s

Good luck

taffer87

Thank you. Don't agree re harassment - you are making it up again I am afraid - but with a factual style:). And why will I evict them illegally anyway - if it really comes to it I will evict them legally through the courts....

Plus I am sure I can get someone I know to rent rather than a stranger... which should make all the above a mute point anyway...

Guest101 wrote: »

Good luck

King_Slayer

Seek legal advice and ensure that it doesn't breach your mortgage agreement (if you have one) as that's just a whole world of unecessary trouble.

Guest101

taffer87 wrote: »

Thank you. Don't agree re harassment - you are making it up again I am afraid - but with a factual style:). -Google the protection from Eviction Act and Rights to Quiet Enjoyment and Protection from harassment Act. And why will I evict them illegally anyway - if it really comes to it I will evict them legally through the courts.... -Which is what you wanted to avoid?

Plus I am sure I can get someone I know to rent rather than a stranger... which should make all the above a mute point anyway...

If you rent to someone you know, that wont mean they arent a tenant.

Rule 1: never rent to someone you arent prepared to evict.

taffer87

Where living accomodation is shared with landlord (in landlord's main home) - which the kitchen/dining room will be in my case (just not 24/7 - will agree reasonable times) then even tenants will come into one of the exceptions in the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and no court order will be required. This is even in case of a tenancy. However, on balance I feel with everything combined it would be strange for a court to consider it a tenancy and not a lodger agreement. Plus re harrassment - as the services plus my use of the washroom in the annex will happen from day 1 - it will be pretty quickly establish itself as a norm and hard for anyone to sue for harrassment 6 months later when its in the contract, has been happening from day 1 etc etc etc

Guest101 wrote: »

If you rent to someone you know, that wont mean they arent a tenant.

Rule 1: never rent to someone you arent prepared to evict.

Agree,

Guest101

taffer87 wrote: »

Where living accomodation is shared with landlord (in landlord's main home) - which the kitchen/dining room will be in my case (just not 24/7 - will agree reasonable times) then even tenants will come into one of the exceptions in the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and no court order will be required. This is even in case of a tenancy. However, on balance I feel with everything combined it would be strange for a court to consider it a tenancy and not a lodger agreement. Plus re harrassment - as the services plus my use of the washroom in the annex will happen from day 1 - it will be pretty quickly establish itself as a norm and hard for anyone to sue for harrassment 6 months later when its in the contract, has been happening from day 1 etc etc etc

Agree,

Where living accomodation is shared with landlord (in landlord's main home) - which the kitchen/dining room will be in my case (just not 24/7 - will agree reasonable times) then even tenants will come into one of the exceptions in the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and no court order will be required. My Landlord also has a kitchen and dining room in his home, if he said I could pop in between 9pm & 11pm for a brew and stick a pizza in the oven, it would not take away my tenancy - it would not make me a lodger. He isnt living in your main residence, he would be living in a self contained flat.
There is no law that requires a tenant to have access to a full stocked kitchen, just access to somewhere where he could prepare food (including but not requiring putting in any appliances he chooses).

An excluded occupier is ofcourse excluded from the protection from eviction act. However you claiming him to be a lodger, doesnt necessarilly make him one.

What you're saying is, he has his own property, which it's own access etc. Self contained. IE not attached to your main residence. But because you've said he can use your dining room / kitchen, this takes away his tenancy?! - really?

However, on balance I feel with everything combined it would be strange for a court to consider it a tenancy and not a lodger agreement. - It really wouldnt be. I have no idea what you base this on.

Plus re harrassment - as the services plus my use of the washroom in the annex will happen from day 1 - it will be pretty quickly establish itself as a norm and hard for anyone to sue for harrassment 6 months later when its in the contract, has been happening from day 1 etc etc - Your contract can say whatever you want it to. Doesnt mean it will stand up in a court of law. A contract can never overrule the law. There are statutory protections.

It will however show the court that who were harassing your tenant from day 1. (unless they change the locks of course).

I really think you should seek legal advice, try shelter. Its free and may put you on the right path.

taffer87

The lodger will have no cooking facilities in the annex. His cooking facilities will be in shared living accomodation with me. He won't have exclusive access because of the services I provide + my use of the shared bathroom which is very convenient as it is seperate from the bedroom. Self contained needs to have cooking facilities - read the case law, thanks. His access is through my garden - no direct. You are making some of the stuff up so yeah good point re legal advice. Thank you.

Guest101 wrote: »

Where living accomodation is shared with landlord (in landlord's main home) - which the kitchen/dining room will be in my case (just not 24/7 - will agree reasonable times) then even tenants will come into one of the exceptions in the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and no court order will be required. My Landlord also has a kitchen and dining room in his home, if he said I could pop in between 9pm & 11pm for a brew and stick a pizza in the oven, it would not take away my tenancy - it would not make me a lodger. He isnt living in your main residence, he would be living in a self contained flat.
There is no law that requires a tenant to have access to a full stocked kitchen, just access to somewhere where he could prepare food (including but not requiring putting in any appliances he chooses).

An excluded occupier is ofcourse excluded from the protection from eviction act. However you claiming him to be a lodger, doesnt necessarilly make him one.

What you're saying is, he has his own property, which it's own access etc. Self contained. IE not attached to your main residence. But because you've said he can use your dining room / kitchen, this takes away his tenancy?! - really?

However, on balance I feel with everything combined it would be strange for a court to consider it a tenancy and not a lodger agreement. - It really wouldnt be. I have no idea what you base this on.

Plus re harrassment - as the services plus my use of the washroom in the annex will happen from day 1 - it will be pretty quickly establish itself as a norm and hard for anyone to sue for harrassment 6 months later when its in the contract, has been happening from day 1 etc etc - Your contract can say whatever you want it to. Doesnt mean it will stand up in a court of law. A contract can never overrule the law. There are statutory protections.

It will however show the court that who were harassing your tenant from day 1. (unless they change the locks of course).

I really think you should seek legal advice, try shelter. Its free and may put you on the right path.

taffer87

I have already mentioned there will no longer be a kitchen in the annexe when I rent. Will take cooker out / etractor fan out... so just an entrance hallway leading to bathroom and bedroom. Plus you simply can't get in your head that you don't know the law in full and have resorted to making stuff up. Thank you

Guest101 wrote: »

Seriously, im torn between stubborn and troll, or genuinely stupidity. Or all 3.

Guest101

taffer87 wrote: »

You simply can't get in your head that you don't know the law in full and have resorted to making stuff up. Thank you

Lol. Ok.
What exactly have I made up?

I don't know the law in full, but suspect I know it better than u do

Guest101

F it.

Why argue. Go for it.

I'll enjoy the follow up in a few months when ur getting sued for thousands.