Landlord's Family and lodgers rules

Cautious_Optimist

Just after a bit of general advice:

I've read that if someone owns a house and a member of their family lives in that house, then anyone else residing in that house, is considered a lodger, rather than a tenant.

So the family member residing in the house, has the same effect as if the owner himself was residing there. (ie exclusion from tenant status for other occupants).

My first question is:
What is the definition of "family member" in this circumstance?
I'm assuming siblings, parents and children count.
But what about nieces, nephews, cousins, uncles, aunts etc?

My second question is:
What is the status of the family member, if the owner is not resident?
Are they considered a tenant, whilst the others are all lodgers?

Thanks

anselld

Cautious_Optimist wrote: »

I've read that if someone owns a house and a member of their family lives in that house, then anyone else residing in that house, is considered a lodger, rather than a tenant.

It depends who the Landlord is. i.e. who is named on the agreement and who receives the rent.

So if rent is paid to the owner and there is an AST in place directly with the owner then the fact that a family member also lives there is irrelevant to the Ts rights.

If rent is paid to the resident family member and there is no agreement or a lodger agreement then yes, the T is actually a lodger.

Pixie5740

It doesn't really matter what counts as a family member or the residency status of the property owner. What is important is who the tenant/lodger pays rent to and therefore has a contract with. If rent it paid to the owner of the property and the owner does not live in the property as their main residence then the one paying rent is a tenant. However, if the rent is paid to one of the other people living in the property then the one paying rent would be a lodger.

I have a spare room in the flat I'm renting. If I rented that room out the person paying me rent would be my lodger regardless of whether or not the owner of this property was my mum, my aunt, my great uncle willy, or a total stranger.

silvercar

So if rent is paid to the owner and there is an AST in place directly with the owner then the fact that a family member also lives there is irrelevant to the Ts rights.

Unless the family member living in the property is part owner, even if the part owner owns only a very small part. Then it would not be practical to tell a tenant/lodger to pay the rent in portions to the owners, so one owner would agree to take in the rent on behalf of all.

A typical example would be a parent buying a property in university town for offspring to live in and renting other rooms to other students. By making the offspring an owner of say 1% of the property the other students become lodgers is my understanding.

Cautious_Optimist

silvercar wrote: »

Unless the family member living in the property is part owner, even if the part owner owns only a very small part. Then it would not be practical to tell a tenant/lodger to pay the rent in portions to the owners, so one owner would agree to take in the rent on behalf of all.

A typical example would be a parent buying a property in university town for offspring to live in and renting other rooms to other students. By making the offspring an owner of say 1% of the property the other students become lodgers is my understanding.

Thanks.
I didn't know the family member occupier had to have part ownership, in order to exclude the other residents from tenancy.

I thought the mere presence of a family member residing in a property was enough to exclude any tenancy status.

So in such a scenario, is the 1pc resident owner a tenant of the 99pc non-resident owner?

I have heard this is a popular option for parents with children at college.

silvercar

Thanks.
I didn't know the family member occupier had to have part ownership, in order to exclude the other residents from tenancy.

I thought the mere presence of a family member residing in a property was enough to exclude any tenancy status.

No. I was just explaining a possible scenario where the post I quoted may not be true. There are tax advantages in having a poor student as joint owner, so there are reasons for doing it other than to stop lodgers becoming tenants.

G_M

Pixie5740 wrote: »

It doesn't really matter what counts as a family member or the residency status of the property owner. What is important is who the tenant/lodger pays rent to and therefore has a contract with. If rent it paid to the owner of the property and the owner does not live in the property as their main residence then the one paying rent is a tenant. However, if the rent is paid to one of the other people living in the property then the one paying rent would be a lodger.

Not so simple.

The family member living in the property who collects the rent might be acting as agent for the (non-resident) owner/landlord.

In which case you would be a tenant not a lodger even if paying rent to the resident family member.

* whose name is on the property Title Deeds?
* was any agreement signed? If yes, who with, and what does it say?
* who did you negotiate with to move in? Who advertised the room/property? Who showed you round?
* what are the arrangements for utilities? Do you pay them? Does the owner? Or the resident family member?
* who do you speak to about repairs/issues?
* does the family member pay rent (to your knowledge) to the owner?
* is the family member the owner's spouse?

Kynthia

As others have stated, it's nothing to do with whether the person living in the property is related to the owner. You don't need to own a property or be related to the owner in order to take in a lodger.


What matters is who does the person who wants to live there have a contract with? Does that person live at the property? Therefore is they live with their landlord who they have a contract with then they are a lodger, regardless of whether the landlord owns the property or not.

Cautious_Optimist

Thanks for all the replies.
I've looked this up again on the government website:

https://www.gov.uk/rent-room-in-your-home/your-lodgers-tenancy-type

It states:

''Your lodger is likely to be an excluded occupier if:

(1) They live in your home
(2) You or a member of your family share a kitchen, bathroom or living room with them''

Now, does this mean (1) AND (2) must apply, or does it mean (1) OR (2) must apply...?

I think that's what's caused me the confusion.

So, if (1) AND (2) need apply:

I buy a house and let my son move in without me.
I own the house completely, not my son.
My son invites other friends to move in also.
(No locks on any bedroom doors).

Does my son become MY tenant and his friends become HIS lodgers?

So I would have the legal responsibilities of a LL to my (tenant) son (eg deposit protection), but my son would only have responsibilities to his friends as lodgers (eg gas safety).
So my son would have an assumed (or actual) AST, whilst his friends would be excluded licencees?
So if there were problems with the friends, it would easier for my son to evict them, than me?
Is this correct?

Thanks again.

Annisele

Cautious_Optimist wrote: »

''Your lodger is likely to be an excluded occupier if:

(1) They live in your home
(2) You or a member of your family share a kitchen, bathroom or living room with them''

That quote applies to lodgers only. If the person is a tenant, they're not a lodger and therefore the "excluded occupier or not" stuff doesn't apply - they're just plain a tenant.

In the situation you describe, if you're not living in the house then none of the people in it can be your lodgers. They *may* be your son's lodgers, and he *might* be your tenant - but it depends on the agreements you all have.

G_M

Plus that is not a legal definition - it is simply a guide. Note:

It states:

''Your lodger is likely to be an excluded occupier if: