Number of nights an excluded occupier can have a guest

Yorkie1

They will get far more freedom on an AST.

allthingsmustpass

They should move out to get away from such an interfering so and so!

RobertoMoir

someanonbloke wrote: »

No, because I want the individual to stay but I have to persuade the individual to change their ways and that if they go elsewhere, which is likely to be an AST, they won't get any more freedom. Of course, I don't know, which is why I'm asking.

What are you trying to get at here? What is the actual problem that you are trying to solve?

If you're talking about a lodger having a friend over then as the LL, you can pretty much make up your own rules. You don't have to "prove" anything to anyone. You don't want to let a room in your house to one person then suddenly find yourself outnumbered at home, or having to pay for the increased expenses of running a home for 3 people without a corresponding increase in the room rental fees. That's reasonable enough I think.

Your lodger, equally, doesn't have to keep on staying with someone who tries to impose (what might be to their mind at least) overly stringent rules on them.

In neither case do the terms of an AST become relevant or even just a useful yardstick, and as is apparent from the responses here, you're just confusing the issue by trying to bring them into the discussion.

someanonbloke wrote: »

No, because I want the individual to stay but I have to persuade the individual to change their ways and that if they go elsewhere, which is likely to be an AST, they won't get any more freedom. Of course, I don't know, which is why I'm asking.

Ok. Why do you need to persuade someone to 'change their ways'. You're their LL not their parent or guardian, right? Talking about whether or not they get "any more freedom" makes you sound more like someone's dad laying down the law to a young son or daughter than a LL.

If they rent a flat or house for themselves then to a large extent most LLs won't care if they move their partner in with them some or all of the time. The council, etc. won't care provided there's no attempt to defraud them on benefits, etc. either.

Kynthia

A tenant on an AST will have exclusive occupation of the room or whole property they rent, with quiet enjoyment which is prevention of unnecessary interference from their landlord. Therefore it's likely they would have more freedom as they wouldn't be living in someone elses home.

someanonbloke

Why does this happen all the time?

I ask an incredibly simple question (What is the rule with guests in an AST?) and get a load of replies from the Thought Police?

You're probably a bunch of loser Neo-Con Daily Mail readers who believe that 9/11 and the subsequent wars are all because of the terrorists.

Now, once again, what is the rule with ASTs? Now, take the leap of imagination and just imagine I didn't ask about the rules with excluded occupiers. There, not so hard was it!

theartfullodger

Sigh! You really know how to get helpful answers from people...

There are no firm rules.

If there was a clause in either an excluded occupier agreement or an AST that would be all very interesting but what are you going to do?? Try to evict because the tenant breaks the rules?? Do you really think a judge will agree to eviction of the basis of a tenant having a mate stay 2 days too many??

btw what the paperwork says (AST, excluded occupant..) doesn't matter, but what the actual arrangements are does. So if someone has a lodger agreement but the landlord did not (genuinely) live in the same building at some point during the accupancy they would have an AST.

Or is someone had an AST but resided in a converted flat in the same building as the landlord it wouldn't be an AST. But you knew that anyway I guess//....

Cheers!

G_M

someanonbloke wrote: »

...
You're probably a bunch of loser Neo-Con Daily Mail readers who believe that 9/11 and the subsequent wars are all because of the terrorists.

Now, once again, what is the rule with ASTs? ...!

On an AST:

* the tenant can have overnight guests provided the LL has given written permission
* permission is not to be 'unreasonably withheld'
* it is deemed reasonable to withhold permission if the requests exceed 1 night per week or 5 nights per calendar month

Happy now?

(edit: serious readers of this thread, from which I exclude the OP, should read my post here further down the thread before relying on the above advice)

neas

I rented on an AST in a 6 person house share... in general we couldn't say jack about boyfriends/girlfriends staying over as they rented their room and could do what they wanted.

Certainly couldn't stop them seeing their partner or limit them to 1 day a month or week etc.

In a lodging house it all depends how good/bad your landlord is. I understand the landlord in a lodging agreement can just kick out a lodger with say 24 hours notice, its all down to informal/gentleman agreeements and common sense I guess.

Kynthia

someanonbloke wrote: »

Why does this happen all the time?

I ask an incredibly simple question (What is the rule with guests in an AST?) and get a load of replies from the Thought Police?

You're probably a bunch of loser Neo-Con Daily Mail readers who believe that 9/11 and the subsequent wars are all because of the terrorists.

Now, once again, what is the rule with ASTs? Now, take the leap of imagination and just imagine I didn't ask about the rules with excluded occupiers. There, not so hard was it!

You're the one missing the point completely. Look at my post, the one before yours, and if your clever you might realise that I did answer your question. However I suspect you won't be able to see it so I'll say it again. Tenants, as opposed to lodgers, have exclusive occupation of the space they rent. They can go to court to enforce their ability to enjoy this space without unnecessary interference from their landlord (quiet enjoyment). Therefore ASTs don't usually try to dictate how the tenant lives in their space within reason and if it did and the tenant didn't comply, the landlord's only recourse would be to evict through a 'no fault' notice which could take months. They would have to use a no fault notice as I doubt any judge would enforce a clause about overnight guests.

Strapped

OR - just grow some balls and lay down the law in your own godamn house :P