Trying to sell flat - tenant has made it look awful

19lottie82

sitesafe wrote: »

Thank you - useful piece of information, (would have been more useful to have included it in your initial response to my posting

I did...........

sitesafe

19lottie82 wrote: »

I did...........

But you weren't referring to the FIVE differences at that stage as I hadn't posted the link.

I found your reaction 'nonsense' (a somewhat insulting response) to my posting inappropriate, as you could see I'd used the terms 'apparently' and 'as far as I'm aware' - . I also found it inappropriate as I wasn't completely wrong in the end as you agreed, it formed part of the five criteria............................

glamourpug

Thanks to all who've made a useful contribution. Did wonder if it was now technically an HMO. My reasoning for not serving a section 21 before I put flat on market [apart from not wanting to lose rent] was that I thought most buyers would take a while to get all the legal stuff done, possibly give notice on where they were living [as one of my viewers confirmed] and that by the time they'd finished with that, the 2 mths would be up. however, have decided to issue section 21 tomorrow, and not bother to waste my time questioning her as to who's living there and paying what. Not that I believe for 1 second she would tell me the truth about that obviously

G_M

glamourpug wrote: »

Yes, I'm aware that the process can take longer than 2 months.

Yes but are you aware

* it is impossible to anticpate how long? Buyers won't like the uncertainty
* it can take 5-6 months?

Many (most) buyers will refuse to even spen money on survey/searches/mortgage application till the tenant is gone because of the above. they certainly won't Exchange.

Plus you're losing buyers, and vlaue, due to the state of the place.

Evict. Tidy up, clean and redecorate.

then sell

browneyedbazzi

sitesafe wrote: »

But you weren't referring to the FIVE differences at that stage as I hadn't posted the link.

I found your reaction 'nonsense' (a somewhat insulting response) to my posting inappropriate, as you could see I'd used the terms 'apparently' and 'as far as I'm aware' - . I also found it inappropriate as I wasn't completely wrong in the end as you agreed, it formed part of the five criteria............................

The first response to your post might have been a bit abrupt, but it's a bit much to expect saying 'apparently' and 'as far as I'm aware' to remove all risk of criticism for posting incorrect information. If you are going to post on a forum like this and make comments about a subject you are not very knowledgeable about then you should expect to be criticised when you post rubbish.

Your original post made it sound as though the existence of a lock, on it's own, determined whether or not someone was a tenant or a lodger. That is not correct and another poster rightly pointed out the inaccuracy of your comment. Learn and move on.

moneyistooshorttomention

Mojisola wrote: »

It sounds as if your tenant has turned your flat into an HMO.

https://www.gov.uk/private-renting/houses-in-multiple-occupation
Your home is a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) if:
at least 3 tenants live there, forming more than 1 household
you share toilet, bathroom or kitchen facilities with other tenants

and, if that is the case, could OP perhaps get onto the Council and get them to "get on the back" of this problem tenant? Or would the Council come back on OP, even though she isn't the one creating the HMO?

I'd be looking into whether I could get the Council to "kick backside" of tenant, rather than me doing it if I were OP and thought illicit HMO status would apply.

Maybe the Council would head for the correct person (ie tenant) and tenant will decide to leave themselves rather than be on the receiving end of that??

EDIT: Actually, if this tenant is renting as a single person, then they will doubtless be claiming single occupier discount on their Council Tax bill. Personally, I would definitely tell the tenant that I could see this would be the case and they would owe the Council the discount applied ever since they turned my property into said illicit HMO and I suggested they leave right now, in order to avoid me informing the Council of this fact. I wonder just how much CT they owe this Council by now for concealing this little fact?

A "clear up the trouble you have caused and go quietly and I won't land you in it with Officialdom" approach does sometimes work with troublesome tenants (previous lodger in my case).

embob74

Can a shared ownership property be let out then? I always thought it couldn't which is one of the reasons I discounted that as a way to buy our first property.

Pixie5740

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

and, if that is the case, could OP perhaps get onto the Council and get them to "get on the back" of this problem tenant? Or would the Council come back on OP, even though she isn't the one creating the HMO?

I'd be looking into whether I could get the Council to "kick backside" of tenant, rather than me doing it if I were OP and thought illicit HMO status would apply.

Maybe the Council would head for the correct person (ie tenant) and tenant will decide to leave themselves rather than be on the receiving end of that??

EDIT: Actually, if this tenant is renting as a single person, then they will doubtless be claiming single occupier discount on their Council Tax bill. Personally, I would definitely tell the tenant that I could see this would be the case and they would owe the Council the discount applied ever since they turned my property into said illicit HMO and I suggested they leave right now, in order to avoid me informing the Council of this fact. I wonder just how much CT they owe this Council by now for concealing this little fact?

A "clear up the trouble you have caused and go quietly and I won't land you in it with Officialdom" approach does sometimes work with troublesome tenants (previous lodger in my case).

I've pondered whether a LL can be held responsible if their tenants turn the property into an HMO without the LL's knowledge myself. There was a leaflet in with this year's CT bill stating that it's an offence to allow 3 or more unrelated people to occupy the property as their only or main residence. How would the council decide if the LL had allowed it or not? I'm not sure...

glamourpug

embob74 wrote: »

Can a shared ownership property be let out then? I always thought it couldn't which is one of the reasons I discounted that as a way to buy our first property.

Depends on the housing association. Peabody, for example, will only allow in certain extreme circumstances, but mine is more flexible [Hyde]

glamourpug

Thanks all - almost all of you helped clarify my thoughts after the initial shock. Mojisola and Moneystooshorttomention, I did consider 'dobbing her in' to the council re council tax single-person discount. I have now asked letting agent to issue a section 21 to get her out, and I feel a lot better for having made the decision and taken action. Perhaps anonymously informing the council re council tax could act as an extra lever to get her out...