Mum in law wants a lodger

Jagraf

Pixie5740 wrote: »

An Assured Shorthold Tenancy is for a tenant, not a lodger. Where did this AST come from? Your MIL or the lodger?

Lodgers usually have few rights, although this AST might give the lodger more rights. Should your MIL die whilst the lodger is living there then it should be fairly straightforward to evict the lodger without having PoA.

I am sure it said assured shorthold tenancy and I know it said three initial months and then monthly as that's the bit I was concerned about most before reading it. I will check tonight. I knew it was never gong to be straightforward.

The AST came from the agent who are taking a percentage of the rental income. She hasn't seen any references either.

Jagraf

Mojisola wrote: »

Definitely - for a lot of reasons.



A POA would cease as soon as the death happens so it wouldn't help in this situation. It would be the executors who have to take over and manage things.

Thank you. I think we will do a POA and I believe my OH and his sister are already executors.

Jagraf

Mojisola wrote: »

Do you mean the lodger gave your MIL a contract to sign that your MIL didn't read before signing?

No, it was through an agency.

Jagraf

dannim12345 wrote: »

Agreeing with Pixie here. If there a lodger they shouldn't have an AST just a lodgers agreement. Also I think an AST is a minimum of 6 months.... Was this done through a lettings agency?!

A lodgers agreement (although not technically required) can easily be amended to suite e.g. they only have access to certain rooms.

Thank you yes it was a lettings agency. - I wonder whether there is a cooling off period where we can get it changed. Surely the agent, who advertised it as a room let, would know the difference :eek:

Jagraf

I'm starting to feel really cheesed off now. At what point do you back off and let people make their own mistakes?

My husband, her son, is very stressed at work and doesn't have time for this. He spent hours sorting out checks, insurance, etc and everything is just handed to her, done. She doesn't even want to keep the paperwork, she wants us to keep it. At the same time he doesn't want his mum to suffer with the mistakes she would and is, inevitably making.

Sorry, rant over.

Jagraf

Ohhhhh and I think it said something about a section 21. It was advertised, but them, as a room with a live in landlady.

CKhalvashi

Brallaqueen wrote: »

You could suggest checking with any local university for international students who may be more up for interaction to improve their language skills

We did this for 4 years for a Russian student on a degree course, and it was the best thing we ever did.

My main concern for your MiL is that while we had a lodger that effectively became part of the family (although we did know her family for 5 years before she came), this probably won't be the case with this situation.

It would be worth before doing anything, to tread carefully and find a good match, over the first person found moving in.

booksurr

Jagraf wrote: »

Ohhhhh and I think it said something about a section 21. It was advertised, but them, as a room with a live in landlady.

pretty obviously a letting agency is not the sort of place that deals with lodgers and therefore, as in this case, the only documentation the LA has to hand, and in theory has experience in using, is a full blown AST

as a result the "contract" MIL and her lodger have signed is not worth the paper it is written on as she is a resident LL with a lodger. UNLESS (and pay attention to this bit) the contract specifically states somewhere on it that the "lodger" has EXCLUSIVE use of "their" bedroom and MIL agrees NOT to enter that room. If it says that then it is a grey area between when a resident LL grants an AST over a room in the house the LL lives in but can no longer access. If no such exclusivity was granted then tear up the contract and replace it with a lodger agreement.

Demand the LA refunds the fee they almost certainly charged for drawing up the "agreement" - ie for issuing MIL with a stock contract they they use in the normal case of dealing with a LL looking to find a tenant. Your MIL has been ripped off through her ignorance of the difference between a tenant and a lodger.

trying to use S21 would see her laughed out of court

harrys_dad

If you are "doing all the work and keeping all the paperwork" what is the agent doing for their money, other than allowing your mum's "lodger" to actually be a "tenant"?

Jagraf

booksurr wrote: »

pretty obviously a letting agency is not the sort of place that deals with lodgers and therefore, as in this case, the only documentation the LA has to hand, and in theory has experience in using, is a full blown AST

as a result the "contract" MIL and her lodger have signed is not worth the paper it is written on as she is a resident LL with a lodger. UNLESS (and pay attention to this bit) the contract specifically states somewhere on it that the "lodger" has EXCLUSIVE use of "their" bedroom and MIL agrees NOT to enter that room. If it says that then it is a grey area between when a resident LL grants an AST over a room in the house the LL lives in but can no longer access. If no such exclusivity was granted then tear up the contract and replace it with a lodger agreement.

Demand the LA refunds the fee they almost certainly charged for drawing up the "agreement" - ie for issuing MIL with a stock contract they they use in the normal case of dealing with a LL looking to find a tenant. Your MIL has been ripped off through her ignorance of the difference between a tenant and a lodger.

trying to use S21 would see her laughed out of court

That is really helpful thank you. I will check the room entry bit as she did say the agent had said she couldn't go in their room which, I think because of someone on here, made my ears !!!!! up yesterday, but I didn't check whether it was in the contract. Happy days. :cool: Thank you.