Tenants want boyfriend to move in - ok?

jjlandlord

Guest101 wrote: »

4:he would be a squatter if he stayed and they left. Otherwise he's a permitted occupier.

He wouldn't be a squatter.

As for rent increase: During a periodic tenancy, the landlord may serve a notice which does not allow the tenant to say 'no' but just to appeal the increase.

Guest101

swingaloo wrote: »

True the landlord couldn't stop you- but then again if you break the terms of the lease you may well get asked to leave.


I mentioned what 'I think about a blanket answer' as it relevant to the discussion in as much as not every tenant will have the same contract or terms. For you to state 'the landlord cant stop you' is ludicrous. they cant stop you knocking walls down or trashing the place but there will be consequences if you did!


As for the right of a landlord to know who is living in their property- I didn't say it was law, I said they had every right to know.
A landlord would be a right numpty if he didn't know who was living in his property.


I wont reply again as you seem to be quite argumentative with any posters opinion and I'm not getting into that but I think you need to stop misleading people with your interpretation of what you 'think' is right.

A ll can evict with s21 for any reason. Clearly OP didn't want that.

A right is enshrined in law. So no he doesn't have the right to know. He would like to know.

I didn't say whether it was right or wrong. I was pointing out the legal position.

Guest101

jjlandlord wrote: »

He wouldn't be a squatter.

As for rent increase: During a periodic tenancy, the landlord may serve a notice which does not allow the tenant to say 'no' but just to appeal the increase.

Yes, but they could always leave, then potential voids etc, as I said.

Guest101

This can be sorted very quickly, anyone who thinks I'm wrong can ring shelter and ask them.

societys_child

I've no idea what you think you're right about . . .

You jump around, squatters, tenants, voids, can't increase the rent, can increase the rent, you make half of it up as you go along.

Guest101

societys_child wrote: »

I've no idea what you think you're right about . . .

You jump around, squatters, tenants, voids, can't increase the rent, can increase the rent, you make half of it up as you go along.

I'll summarise:
1: the ll cannot dictate who the tenants have in their home or for what length
2: if said person returned they would be a squatter, if they remained an unauthorised occupier ( and the tenants could be liable for costs of removing
3: I didn't say rent increase was not possible. I said the tenants might leave if it was done.
4: which led onto void periods, and re marketing costs for the landlord

jjlandlord

Guest101 wrote: »

Yes, but they could always leave, then potential voids etc, as I said.

What "as you said"?
You said the contrary to what I wrote...

Guest101

jjlandlord wrote: »

What "as you said"?
You said the contrary to what I wrote...

I said they could leave. Which they can. Confused about what you're talking about. - this would lead to re marketing costs, and potential voids.

As for squatting. If he left and returned he would be a squatter. If he refused to leave, then different story ( and as I said the tenants would be liable for costs for removing him)

I didn't say that rent couldn't be raised. I said tenants could say no, and leave. Ok we could argue about the extra £80 of whatever for one month...

jjlandlord

Guest101 wrote: »

Confused about what you're talking about.

I'm not the one who's confused. I have tried to clear up the confusion.

Guest101 wrote: »

As for squatting. If he left and returned he would be a squatter. If he refused to leave, then different story ( and as I said the tenants would be liable for costs for removing him)

You should make up your mind, because you said one thing and its contrary.
You specifically said that if he said he would be a squatter.

">> And what happens if the two girls move out and he decides he's not going?
Then he's a squatter and the police remove him"

"4:he would be a squatter if he stayed and they left."

This is incorrect.

Guest101 wrote: »

I didn't say that rent couldn't be raised. I said tenants could say no, and leave.

But, as said, they cannot really say 'no'... Though indeed they could end the tenancy and move ASAP.

Guest101

jjlandlord wrote: »

I'm not the one who's confused. I have tried to clear up the confusion.



You should make up your mind, because you said one thing and its contrary.
You specifically said that if he said he would be a squatter.

">> And what happens if the two girls move out and he decides he's not going?
Then he's a squatter and the police remove him"

"4:he would be a squatter if he stayed and they left."

This is incorrect.



But, as said, they cannot really say 'no'... Though indeed they could end the tenancy and move ASAP.

Since that post I clarified it, twice.