Renting part of the granny annex

taffer87

Thank you. That's good advice. I have reconsidered my position regarding this. Please see my post above. What do you think now?

I have explained before I do not want tenancy if I can avoid it (ref post 77). I am now happy to share the kitchen/dining room on an unrestricted basis. But there will be a locked door between the kitchen/dining room and rest of my house.

ManuelG wrote: »

Forgetting the legalities for a minute, offering any tenant/lodger/cat sitter access to a kitchen for a small window at weekends is a surefire way to attract the kind of tenant/lodger/dog watcher who'll cause far more hassle than the ones who'll treat respect from landlord in a mutual way.

Note, by no means certain, you may luck out, but the probability is as soon as you start trying to whack in conditions and hoops to jump through, the more likely it is you'll find someone who can play the system better than you.

For there's always somebody who can do that, it's just when you meet them, and in what context.

Personally I'd have thought a nice self contained building on tenancy arrangements is an ideal property to be able to pick and choose potential tenants, and get one who may be happy to stay for years, so why try and shift the goalposts?

Guest101

taffer87 wrote: »

I have explained before that en-suite was perhaps generous. the bathroom access is through the hallway in the annex.

Re: cooking facilities - I only said removing electric stove and extractor fan (and making good the fan outside outlet/plastering) as when I was buying the house this was the condition attached by 2 lenders before they can lend to make the annex non-self containing and having researched various cases etc this seems to be one of the key determinents of self-containing or not. My current lender was however not bothered about it so I didn't take it out when buying.

However, reading your posts it seems you think i will only be removing the kitchen in name. That's not right. I am willing to remove the kitchen sink / and fresh water pipe to the annex as well. In that case the annex will just be a room with a private bathroom through the entrance hallway (where the kitchen was before). There are two entrances to the annex at the minute. One door is garden to bedroom. One door is garden to kitchen and bathroom. There is a connection door between the kitchen/bahtroom area and bathroom.

I am happy to take annex kitchen completely out / including fresh water pipe / sink/ cooker / extractor fan / refloor it / make good extractor fan outlet to outside etc / any structural things needed. Please feel free to suggest what you think it will take to make it non-self containing,

Re: the other problem of kitchen sharing at certain times - my thoughts have evolved as a result of this discussion. The main kitchen/dining room is at the back of my house with an entrance from the garden. Currently there is no door between the kitchen/dining room and the rest of my house but I can put one easily. I can then give the lodger of the annex a key to the kitchen/dining space and effectively this will be shared between us.

--

Leaving all the above aside (which is what I now intend to do now but would appreciate more thoughts advice) - various cases prove the provision of services is sufficient to make it a licence and non-tenancy. However, the right of LL to access must not be in agreement only etc. I have quoted the cases where 20 mintues access for cleaning a week was deemed sufficient for licence.

Whilst I havent read the case, so correct me if i'm wrong. Was it a County Court decision? - therefore not binding.

If so, whilst you could refernece it in any legal case brought before the court, the judge may decide that there is enough difference between that case and this, as to not follow the previous judgment.

The full answer is, if you did the above. I'm not sure what the position would be. And i dont think you woul dget a definitive answer.

1: it could be a lodger, with access unrestricted to fresh water and cooking facilities (much more reasonable by the way).
2: it could be a tenant, with access to the above, but with exclusive possesion of his room.

There are lots of houseshares which are individual tenancies. Where the LL does not live in the property. Where the tenants have exclusive possesion of their room, but communal areas of the house. Common place these are HMOs, where the LL literally rents out by the bedroom.

Let's just go with a practical example.
You get a lodger/tenant move in, all fine for first few days.
Minor altercation regarding something or other.
Now it could be resolved fairly easily, but for whatever reason it's not. He/she calls shelter they tell them its a tenancy, so they decide to change the locks and claim tenants rights.
(- you no longer have access to perform the services you wanted to. )

It's risky to change the locks back, in case shelter is correct. You could get sued for thousands. Equally you havent protected the deposit, so sued for 1-3x the value. You cant evict them for 1st 6 months, the police wont help. (the tenant can just quote this: Naughton v. Whittle and Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police Manchester and they will back right off as they really are not experts)

What then?

I know you might think it's unlikely, but it really does happen.

taffer87

I think its a binding precedent for lower cours as the case is widely quoted as caw law re provision of sercvices - which doesn't happen for county court judgements... I haven't been able to check.

The law is quite clear - exclusive possession of room where "any" living accomodation is shared with landlord (hor his family) in his main residence is excluded occupation and no protection from eviction is granted. This is the case whether its a tenancy or a licence so irrespective of the lodger v tenant debate.

In addition, you need to look at the whole arrangement. I will also be providing cleaning services, providing a bin bag, going in to test fire alarms, and I could even pay for cereal and milk in my kitchen to share and that's continental breakfast. I will retain a key that I will use for the cleaning / checking aram etc. This will also be all written in the agreement (which is not conclusive on its own but the agreement + actual practice of it will be)

Sheleter just by looking at their website accept either of those cases - where living accomodation is shared with landlord or where landlord provides services - they say it is an excluded occupier...

Most importantly the first few days will establish the facts of the matter - if the lodger uses my kitchen for the first few days - I can keep a log / take picture / keep a diary whatever to show as proof. I can allocate a section of fridge and a cabinet for him/her.

I will be shocked if Shelter will decide its a tenancy of their own accord.

Will Shelter lock me out of my kitchen and dining room too?

Guest101 wrote: »

Whilst I havent read the case, so correct me if i'm wrong. Was it a County Court decision? - therefore not binding.

If so, whilst you could refernece it in any legal case brought before the court, the judge may decide that there is enough difference between that case and this, as to not follow the previous judgment.

The full answer is, if you did the above. I'm not sure what the position would be. And i dont think you woul dget a definitive answer.

1: it could be a lodger, with access unrestricted to fresh water and cooking facilities (much more reasonable by the way).
2: it could be a tenant, with access to the above, but with exclusive possesion of his room.

There are lots of houseshares which are individual tenancies. Where the LL does not live in the property. Where the tenants have exclusive possesion of their room, but communal areas of the house. Common place these are HMOs, where the LL literally rents out by the bedroom.

Let's just go with a practical example.
You get a lodger/tenant move in, all fine for first few days.
Minor altercation regarding something or other.
Now it could be resolved fairly easily, but for whatever reason it's not. He/she calls shelter they tell them its a tenancy, so they decide to change the locks and claim tenants rights.
(- you no longer have access to perform the services you wanted to. )

It's risky to change the locks back, in case shelter is correct. You could get sued for thousands. Equally you havent protected the deposit, so sued for 1-3x the value. You cant evict them for 1st 6 months, the police wont help. (the tenant can just quote this: Naughton v. Whittle and Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police Manchester and they will back right off as they really are not experts)

What then?

I know you might think it's unlikely, but it really does happen.

taffer87

This is from Protection from Eviction Act 1977


(2)A tenancy or licence is excluded if—
(a)under its terms the occupier shares any accommodation with the landlord or licensor; and
(b)immediately before the tenancy or licence was granted and also at the time it comes to an end, the landlord or licensor occupied as his only or principal home premises of which the whole or part of the shared accommodation formed part.
(3)A tenancy or licence is also excluded if—
(a)under its terms the occupier shares any accommodation with a member of the family of the landlord or licensor;
(b)immediately before the tenancy or licence was granted and also at the time it comes to an end, the member of the family of the landlord or licensor occupied as his only or principal home premises of which the whole or part of the shared accommodation formed part; and
(c)immediately before the tenancy or licence was granted and also at the time it comes to an end, the landlord or licensor occupied as his only or principal home premises in the same building as the shared accommodation and that building is not a purpose-built block of flats.
(4)For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) above, an occupier shares accommodation with another person if he has the use of it in common with that person (whether or not also in common with others) and any reference in those subsections to shared accommodation shall be construed accordingly, and if, in relation to any tenancy or licence, there is at any time more than one person who is the landlord or licensor, any reference in those subsections to the landlord or licensor shall be construed as a reference to any one of those persons.

Guest101 wrote: »

Whilst I havent read the case, so correct me if i'm wrong. Was it a County Court decision? - therefore not binding.

If so, whilst you could refernece it in any legal case brought before the court, the judge may decide that there is enough difference between that case and this, as to not follow the previous judgment.

The full answer is, if you did the above. I'm not sure what the position would be. And i dont think you woul dget a definitive answer.

1: it could be a lodger, with access unrestricted to fresh water and cooking facilities (much more reasonable by the way).
2: it could be a tenant, with access to the above, but with exclusive possesion of his room.

There are lots of houseshares which are individual tenancies. Where the LL does not live in the property. Where the tenants have exclusive possesion of their room, but communal areas of the house. Common place these are HMOs, where the LL literally rents out by the bedroom.

Let's just go with a practical example.
You get a lodger/tenant move in, all fine for first few days.
Minor altercation regarding something or other.
Now it could be resolved fairly easily, but for whatever reason it's not. He/she calls shelter they tell them its a tenancy, so they decide to change the locks and claim tenants rights.
(- you no longer have access to perform the services you wanted to. )

It's risky to change the locks back, in case shelter is correct. You could get sued for thousands. Equally you havent protected the deposit, so sued for 1-3x the value. You cant evict them for 1st 6 months, the police wont help. (the tenant can just quote this: Naughton v. Whittle and Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police Manchester and they will back right off as they really are not experts)

What then?

I know you might think it's unlikely, but it really does happen.

Mojisola

taffer87 wrote: »

The law is quite clear - exclusive possession of room where "any" living accomodation is shared with landlord (hor his family) in his main residence is excluded occupation and no protection from eviction is granted.

As you're so convinced you are right, why are you still trying to justify your position - just go ahead and get a 'lodger'.

taffer87

Because if someone has a good argument against my understanding then I am happy to change my view. Thank you.

Mojisola wrote: »

As you're so convinced you are right, why are you still trying to justify your position - just go ahead and get a 'lodger'.

Guest101

You know what, go for it.

I know what consitutes an excluded occupier. I am not convinced that you are 'sharing accomodation'. A court can decide that. - You might think its clear in black and white, but the law is about interpretation.

You're convinced you're right. Numerous posters here have said they arent as sure (most if not all of whom are also aware of the differences between lodgers and tenants.)

Feel free to ignore the advice and try.

Guest101

taffer87 wrote: »

Because if someone has a good argument against my understanding then I am happy to change my view. Thank you.

There have been plenty of 'good arguments', you have ignored them. you have interpreted the law to suit you.

Fair enough, but there wont be any more arguements. It's been explained to you.

Now you need to make the choice. - post the advert when you've put it up.

Also you never did answer one thing, which is quite pertanent (though i suspect it's one plot of land on land registry) - does land registry have this land down as a single plot?

taffer87

Not good/plausible in my view Especially as you don't read the law and make up stories and rights which the law doesn't give in case of shared accomodation with landlord. And I have changed what I intend to do as a reuslt of this discussion re full kitchen/dining room access, taking out kitchen in full in annex, etc so this has been very helpful in that regard.

yes, it is one plot in the land registry. The annex is at the back of my garden. thanks

Guest101 wrote: »

There have been plenty of 'good arguments', you have ignored them. you have interpreted the law to suit you.

Fair enough, but there wont be any more arguements. It's been explained to you.

Now you need to make the choice. - post the advert when you've put it up.

Also you never did answer one thing, which is quite pertanent (though i suspect it's one plot of land on land registry) - does land registry have this land down as a single plot?

Guest101

taffer87 wrote: »

Not good/plausible in my view Especially as you don't read the law and make up stories and rights which the law doesn't give in case of shared accomodation with landlord. And I have changed what I intend to do as a reuslt of this discussion re full kitchen/dining room access, taking out kitchen in full in annex, etc so this has been very helpful in that regard.

yes, it is one plot in the land registry. The annex is at the back of my garden. thanks

oh !!!! it. im done.

I've read the law, not made anything up. I dont agree that they will be sharing accomodation with you. But you arent going to change your mind about how you see it. - and for that reason, i'm out.

Good luck.