Evicting Family Members!

Micromat

BigAunty wrote: »

If they are paying less than half of market rent for a number of years, and their budgeting despite this is so poor that despite subsidized rent, they don't have a bean, then I'm not surprised they are resisting the reality of the market place. Are they hankering for a non-existing property - a cheap place in the same area?

Yes, now realising they will need to pay the market rent has worried them and they should have saved but bit late for that now!

BitterAndTwisted

They've been paying dirt-cheap rent for SIX YEARS and now you've "offered to pay their security deposit and first months rent when they found a suitable place", and they still haven't found anywhere in three months?

They are going to be harder to shift than a case of boils!

Give them a deadline and ensure they know you're deadly serious or they will still be there this time next year,.

G_M

It's time they grew up and started looking after themslves, and their kids, themselves. They've had a cushy time and have simply exploited the situation.

Had they been saving hard , and still could not afford rents due to low income/high rents etc, I'd have some sympathy, but they are never going to make the move unles reality is forced upon them.

I doubt they will qualify for council housing, and if they do, it will probably be a grotty B&B.

You need to give them a deadline and then enforce it. No excuses.

theartfullodger

Micromat wrote: »

Hi, first post!
For the last 6 years we have shared our house with our daughter her husband and their 2 now late teenage sons. We don't stay there all year as we have a holiday place so only stay there 3/4 months during the winter but last year (October 2014)

So as you stay most of the time elsewhere (8/9months of the year) that "holiday home" would likely (yes, depends on judge **) be found to be your primary home so you are a "non-resident" landlord to your daughter etc etc.. To be a resident landlord you need to occupy the premises as your “only or principal home", and occupy it continuously (hospital trips & short holidays OK..)

Although the rent has been very low ...

How low?? If it is less than £1,000/pa for a London property or £250/pa for a property outside London then it cannot be (may nor be, legally impossible to be..) an AST. (Even if rent not always paid, what matters is the rent amount)

Assuming it's more than that then they have an AST, albeit unwritten. You need to issue either/or/both S21 - S8 & then pursue the court eviction route.

You could try assuming you are not "non-resident" and just change the locks but that might be found illegal eviction & you end up in jail and/or with a large fine.

Cheers!

** IIRC correctly there is a case where someone spent most of the time away, in an Hotel in the south of France I think, but was found to be resident in their UK home... but if there is an illegal eviction case then judge will decide for you...

Micromat

theartfullodger wrote: »

So as you stay most of the time elsewhere (8/9months of the year) that "holiday home" would likely (yes, depends on judge **) be found to be your primary home so you are a "non-resident" landlord to your daughter etc etc.. To be a resident landlord you need to occupy the premises as your “only or principal home", and occupy it continuously (hospital trips & short holidays OK..)

Interesting... my understanding was that our resident home was the place we are registered, ie our address, our 'only or principle home' When we stay away from home we are on holiday and wherever that place is it's not residential. Surely there are no rules about the amount of time a house owner stays away from their home which makes them non-resident? If I'm wrong please direct me.

theartfullodger wrote: »

How low?? If it is less than £1,000/pa for a London property or £250/pa for a property outside London then it cannot be (may nor be, legally impossible to be..) an AST. (Even if rent not always paid, what matters is the rent amount)

I read somewhere that by default a let without an agreement became an AST but didn't realise it had a rent threshold and also it was only if the landlord didn't live in!

Thanks for the post, I'll check what you say.

Annisele

Micromat wrote: »

Interesting... my understanding was that our resident home was the place we are registered, ie our address, our 'only or principle home' When we stay away from home we are on holiday and wherever that place is it's not residential. Surely there are no rules about the amount of time a house owner stays away from their home which makes them non-resident? If I'm wrong please direct me.

Your first post implies you have one single holiday home - so I assumed you were living most of the year in one place (abroad), rather than moving between different hotels? If you're living in a place, then I think that place must be "residential" rather than, say, "commercial" - but that may or may not matter for these purposes.

There are *plenty* of rules around the concept of "residency". For tax purposes, "resident" and "ordinarily resident" aren't quite the same thing. It's possible to have a "principle private residence" that you're not actually living in right now. And you can theoretically be "resident" for one purpose but not for another. A lot of it is (IMO) new rules made to stop people getting round old rules, and the overall effect is complexity.

Micromat

Annisele wrote: »

Your first post implies you have one single holiday home - so I assumed you were living most of the year in one place (abroad), rather than moving between different hotels? If you're living in a place, then I think that place must be "residential" rather than, say, "commercial" - but that may or may not matter for these purposes.

There are *plenty* of rules around the concept of "residency". For tax purposes, "resident" and "ordinarily resident" aren't quite the same thing. It's possible to have a "principle private residence" that you're not actually living in right now. And you can theoretically be "resident" for one purpose but not for another. A lot of it is (IMO) new rules made to stop people getting round old rules, and the overall effect is complexity.

Sorry it did read slightly wrong. We have a touring caravan and travel within the UK. Mostly we get back home at least twice a week to pick up the post and sometimes we stay but not often.
Regarding the tax office, they told me my resident home is "the place where I would expect to be found" therefore as everything, ie driving licence, banking, doctors, tax office, etc... is registered at our home address I assumed it must be our residence.

Yes I can well imagine rules are made to stop anybody finding loopholes in old rules but nothing we are doing is illegal or breaking any rules, well not that I'm aware of!

Micromat

G_M wrote: »

It's time they grew up and started looking after themslves, and their kids, themselves. They've had a cushy time and have simply exploited the situation.

Had they been saving hard , and still could not afford rents due to low income/high rents etc, I'd have some sympathy, but they are never going to make the move unles reality is forced upon them.

I doubt they will qualify for council housing, and if they do, it will probably be a grotty B&B.

You need to give them a deadline and then enforce it. No excuses.

Thank you, I tend to agree with what you say although we don't want to fall out with our daughter so to some extent we need to be careful but firm, I'm sure we will find a solution.

theartfullodger

Micromat wrote: »

Interesting... my understanding was that our resident home was the place we are registered, ie our address, our 'only or principle home' When we stay away from home we are on holiday and wherever that place is it's not residential. Surely there are no rules about the amount of time a house owner stays away from their home which makes them non-resident? If I'm wrong please direct me....

'umbly suggest you peruse Housing Act 1988 Schedule 1 (10)(1)(c)...
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/50/schedule/1/part/I/crossheading/resident-landlords

(c) that, subject to Part III of this Schedule, at all times since the tenancy was granted the interest of the landlord under the tenancy has belonged to an individual who, at the time he owned that interest, occupied as his only or principal home another dwelling-house which,—etc etc

It's the law: Dunno if daughter, her adviser (both of whom may be viewing..) or Judge will know.....or how Judge would interpret it...

Clearly if you had gone on a 3 week holiday in Caribbean, fine, still your home, or had a hospital or prison visit (no offence - you were released without a stain before it got to court..) for 6 weeks but 8/9 months, every year... Were I the Judge (I am not..) I'd find that you were not at all time a "resident landlord".

Do let us know if it ever gets to court & what the ruling is, please.

Cheers!

GwylimT

I take it they also haven't been saving since you asked them to leave?

This is the problem with paying family a non-market rent, some people remain ignorant to actual costs and get a very nasty shock.

Have you thought abouy sitting down together to compile a list of suitable properties?