Renting part of the granny annex

Mojisola

Guest101 wrote: »

Why argue. Go for it.

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

It would be so easy for a 'lodger' to get themselves settled in the annex, change the locks, claim a tenancy, report the landlord for not putting the deposit in a scheme and earn a nice handout and then wait for the LL to have to go to court to evict him/her.

taffer87

I like your use of suspect... much better.

Thanks for all the input anyway - has given me much food for thought.

Guest101 wrote: »

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

taffer87 wrote: »

I like your use of suspect... much better.

Thanks for all the input anyway - has given me much food for though.

Consider this: I have nothing to gain by deceiving you. I could be wrong, and fair enough if I am. I've lost nothing by being right or wrong.

If you're wrong what do you stand to lose?

I gain nothing by offering advice, which is backed by knowledge I've gained over time. I've done it really to stop you falling foul of the law.

I believe your argument is flawed. It's based on:
1: contract, which cannot supersede law
2: proximity to your main residence, but I struggle to see the relevance of this - and you've not explained it very well.
3: the fact you've offered them access to your property, but again feel this is irrelevant.

If you can clarify this, perhaps I'll better understand your position.

taffer87

I guess my argument is:

1- contract - this should have some detrimental value but agreed no legal value - but it wont just be on paper it will be effected in real life

2- the annexe will not be self contained. You need to look at the legal definition of self contained. A room with a bathroom is not self contained. You have repeated your assertion numerous times without any support and I have mine. There is no case law re both assertions that I can find to substantiate either position. I believe sharing of living/kitchen room will mean that the exemption in 3a)2) and 3a)3) of Protection from Eviction Act 1977 will apply..

3- Exclusive use / occupation will be negated somewhat (or fully) by the provision of services by me making it a licence/lodger agreement - not tenancy.

4- linked to 2 - the only cooking facilities that the annex will have will be shared with the main building.

5- the annex is at the back of my garden - all the above + it needs access through my garden should have some additive support

6- and this is new - I could consider removing the shower room from their bathroom too and making a new shower room on the ground floor that is shared at the back of my house or in a shed possibly (which will be easier). In this case the bathroom will be shared with landlord. However, this would reduce rent by a reasonable amount so not my preferred option - but failing all else - the are is such that it will still be a good investment.

7- I could just do air bnb or Mon-Thursday letting

8 - I could just to a student (there is a uni nearby) ...

In 7 and 8, their main residence will be elsewhere.

9 - i could look at holiday letting / bnb type arrangement

Shelter's tenancy checker: england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/downloads_and_tools/tenancy_checker suggests that if services are provided (cleaning, meals or laundry) then the tenant/lodger is an excluded occupier. But it might just be a design fault in their questionnaire.

There are loads of cases re licence and services here: https://quizlet.com/5705536/leases-flash-cards/

Guest101 wrote: »

Consider this: I have nothing to gain by deceiving you. I could be wrong, and fair enough if I am. I've lost nothing by being right or wrong.

If you're wrong what do you stand to lose?

I gain nothing by offering advice, which is backed by knowledge I've gained over time. I've done it really to stop you falling foul of the law.

I believe your argument is flawed. It's based on:
1: contract, which cannot supersede law
2: proximity to your main residence, but I struggle to see the relevance of this - and you've not explained it very well.
3: the fact you've offered them access to your property, but again feel this is irrelevant.

If you can clarify this, perhaps I'll better understand your position.

jamie11

I would say that just offering the use of your kitchen from 9 to 11 pm would be seen as what it is, a ploy to keep the tenant in the excluded tenancy scenario, I've no doubt a judge would see through it as well.

taffer87

Also have a look at Huwyler v Ruddy - where provision of services for only 20 minutes a week was deemed sufficient for it not to be a tenancy but a license.

And also Marchant v Charters, where the cleaning was done every day and bed linen changed once a week and it was deemed a licence.

taffer87

And full time on weekends.. I am not hard and fast about 9 to 11... could be 7 to 10pm for e.g... whatever is reasonable and agreed with the lodger

+ what I am saying is taking everything (services) + shared kitchen + shared bathroom into account would be sufficient in my view for it to be a license / excluded occupier and not a tenancy.

jamie11 wrote: »

I would say that just offering the use of your kitchen from 9 to 11 pm would be seen as what it is, a ploy to keep the tenant in the excluded tenancy scenario, I've no doubt a judge would see through it as well.

jamie11

taffer87 wrote: »

Also have a look at Huwyler v Ruddy - where provision of services for only 20 minutes a week was deemed sufficient for it not to be a tenancy but a license.

Sorry, really can't be bothered, you go your own way and good luck.

I'm a strong believer in Karma though and I think this may well come back and bite you in the arris

taffer87

Lol - thanks.

But why will it be bad karma.... I am trying here to operate well within the law and spending time to figure it out. I will not go through with lodger arrangement if I think there is a reasonable chance of it not being within the law. The accommodation is excellent quality. I intend to be a really good landlord but where I can - within the law - secure my rights then I will. Thank you.

jamie11 wrote: »

Sorry, really can't be bothered, you go your own way and good luck.

I'm a strong believer in Karma though and I think this may well come back and bite you in the arris

jamie11

taffer87 wrote: »

I intend to be a really good landlord but where I can - within the law - secure my rights then I will. Thank you.

Don't try to be clever, allow the tenant the normal facilities. Limiting the use of the kitchen to a couple of (late) hours a day is not normal.

Otherwise join the property to the main house so the tenant has to enter from your front door, then he will be a true lodger.

Search for a 'lodger agreement' do not try to modify an AST agreement.