Lodger refusing to do share of cleaning

G_M

lisyloo wrote: »

Just because you write it in the contract doesn't mean you can't give more.
So you can put a MINimum of 1 weeks notice in the contract which gives you that right, but then offer someone 1 months notice to give yourself time to find another lodger.
This gives you the best of both worlds e.g. ability to get rid of someone really bad, but you can also minimise voids.r.

This would be an unfair term, and uneforcible in law.

Notice should be the same both ways.

getmore4less

G_M wrote: »

This would be an unfair term, and uneforcible in law.

Notice should be the same both ways.

Which law is that?

AST that requires the landlord to give 2 months and tenant 1 month......

lisyloo

This would be an unfair term, and uneforcible in law.

Which part is unfair?
My suggestion is that the landlord can give MORE notice than in the contract.
Parties to a contract are always free to be more generous than the terms.

TheFox30

If I give tenants 'minimum 1 week's notice' in future, I probably would make it the same the other way round. It wouldn't seem fair for me to say 'I only have to give you a week's notice but you have to give a month's notice'

kinger101

getmore4less wrote: »

Which law is that?

AST that requires the landlord to give 2 months and tenant 1 month......

But this is not an AST. It's a lodger.

G_M

lisyloo wrote: »

Which part is unfair?
My suggestion is that the landlord can give MORE notice than in the contract.
Parties to a contract are always free to be more generous than the terms.

I take it back. I misread. sorry.

Just because you write it in the contract doesn't mean you can't give more.
So you can put a MINimum of 1 weeks notice in the contract which gives you that right, but then offer someone 1 months notice to give yourself time to find another lodger.

Indeed. Though the ''mimum" does not actually need stating.

What would be unfair would be making the lodger give 1 month (to guaratee you have time to find a replacement) whilst specifying only 1 weeks notice by the landlord (in both cases 'at least' being legally implicit).

No excuse except I speed-read and saw what I expected to see, not what was written. :silenced:

jjlandlord

G_M wrote: »

(in both cases 'at least' being legally implicit)

It's not implicit, and it's quite important to write 'at least' or 'no less' if you don't want to be stuck with having to be precise to the day.

Viberduo

lisyloo wrote: »

If you are living with other people then you surely ought to have some level of consideration for others.
This is part of growing up and anyone happily married or in any kind of harmonious relationship of any kind knows that it works on compromise.

From the way the OP describes it its not that they are not doing basic cleaning just refusing to do a rota i.e clean up after themselves but not others, it could be as simple as they feel that they have done enough and its a bit unfair to make them clean up after others.

I have lived in places where if you finish cooking your meal and go to bedroom to eat it you get people knock on my door accusing me of not cleaning up after using stuff, but the same people would have plates lying there for days or more.

My general idea when sharing is to clean up when it needs done so if I come in and notice dirt on floor I hoover up which means I have had flatmates who used to laugh and know they didnt have to make an effort(and boasted to their friends about it) But if I had flatmates who cleaned up after themselves but then moaned at me for not being clean enough I used to get upset as I would be going out of my way to be tidy.

I remember the time my LL came round for a viewing at like 10am and I had slept in so got out of bed, left my dressing gown on floor but a otherwise spotless house and LL emailed me like 9.30 to say he will be there in 30 minutes "sorry" for the short notice and after he said the house was a tip(he counted my unmade bed and a cereal bowl in sink as a tip)

Or when I first left home I used to wash things to use them as flatmates left them in sink and just did a weekly rota to clean them and that annoyed me and I argued I shouldnt have to be on the rota as I had to wash stuff before and after I wanted to use it and they never did, and I hoovered up the living room and hall as my room was next to front door so it got a lot of dirt from them anyway and did this most days, their logic was even if I washed kitchen stuff a lot I still walked on floor so brought in dirt or sat on sofa in living room.

So I can see where the lodger is coming from, would the OP prefer it if the tenant just left dirty plates and pots in the sink after usage knowing its someone elses turn on rota?

DRP

Viberduo wrote: »

...
So I can see where the lodger is coming from, would the OP prefer it if the tenant just left dirty plates and pots in the sink after usage knowing its someone elses turn on rota?

the lodger agreed to the rota.

Viberduo

DRP wrote: »

the lodger agreed to the rota.

Which means little really, they could not of understood or felt forced to accept the terms.

Thats like saying if I write a piece of paper that says I own your soul and you sign it you have to do so(even if you didnt believe in souls or thought it was a joke)