Trying to sell flat - tenant has made it look awful

moneyistooshorttomention

Pixie5740 wrote: »

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...

Presumably the tenancy agreement would make it plain?? That is, OP has done that agreement with just one person and I would guess that there is a clause in this agreement forbidding sub-letting?

One positive thought is that the fact it would be clear to you at some point that she has done this illicit sub-letting, but she went ahead anyway, gives you an advantage. That advantage being that you are brighter than her, because she was obviously lacking in intelligence enough that she thought she would get away with this indefinitely?

Assuming she has been doing this for a while now, then I think that's a pretty safe assumption to make.

Pixie5740

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Presumably the tenancy agreement would make it plain?? That is, OP has done that agreement with just one person and I would guess that there is a clause in this agreement forbidding sub-letting?

One positive thought is that the fact it would be clear to you at some point that she has done this illicit sub-letting, but she went ahead anyway, gives you an advantage. That advantage being that you are brighter than her, because she was obviously lacking in intelligence enough that she thought she would get away with this indefinitely?

Assuming she has been doing this for a while now, then I think that's a pretty safe assumption to make.

I can recall when a previous lodger of mine did something I thought was more than a little stupid of her. I found out shortly after she moved out and did manage to get the situation "sorted out satisfactorily". However, my suspicion was that she was doing this and hoping to get away with it permanently, but a few weeks living with me revealed I wasn't as daft as she hoped and I was definitely going to "catch her out" at some point and the only question was when and hence she decided her only hope of getting away with it was to move out quickly and hope I wouldn't be able to catch up with her (she got that wrong, as I did catch up with her).

I was just wondering as I have a couple of friends who rent out 3 bedroom flats but don't have and don't want to get a HMO licence so have two people named on the tenancy agreement and possibly have a "no sub-letting" clause. They know 3 unrelated people are living in their property but so far have got away with it and don't think they'll be fined if they're caught.

Sounds like an intriguing situation with your former lodger.

browneyedbazzi

Pixie - the question that an enforcement officer will ask when deciding whether or not to go after the property owner will be 'Did they do everything reasonably possible to prevent the property from being used as an HMO?' Having a clause in a tenancy agreement is a first step, but if the LL doesn't check that it is being complied with and take action to prevent a breach continuing if they discover one (whether it is through incompetence, turning a blind eye or being wilfully ignorant), then the answer is likely to be 'no'.

If the answer is no, there is something else they could have reasonably expected to do, then they could be prosecuted and fined.