Can a Landlord do this

Robster88

As has been mentioned I would also be looking into the HMO licence for the property. If the landlord rents to 5 people they will need to get an HMO licence (they do not need this with 4).

The licence would ensure that there are adequate facilities and that the house is safe in terms of fire safety etc.

The legal requirement for 5 people sharing is that there is 1 bathroom with a bath or shower and 1 separate toilet with wash hand basin (this toilet can be another bathroom).

If the house only currently has one toilet then the landlord would not legally be allowed to add another occupier.

System

theartfullodger wrote: »

Your existing tenancy agreement is fine & carries on: You cannot be made to agree to or sign any new tenancy agreement:

Now, if the new agreement suits you that's a decision for you to decide on.

Well we now have each started paying the owner/landlord and not the agent.

As it is a month by month contract - my belief is that the contract can be changed and rent can be increased with 1 months notice.

That is fine.

As it seems to be the case - the landlord can do what they like with the garage. That is fine. As long as everything is being done by law....

As in the 3 years I have been a resident here - laws have been bypassed by the agent that was running it before. They entered the property themselves whenever they liked, they entered our rooms when they liked, they even bought friends round at 2am one time and played music until 4am and then went round all our rooms looking for a bed to sleep in...and slept in some housemates beds. I had to tell one person to 'bugga' off as they tried to enter my room.

So wanted to make sure that laws are no longer broken in the running of this property.

The landlord had said they were going to put next months rent up....bit late now. 1 months notice hasn't been officially given to any of us. So they will have to wait until the following month to put rent up. But based on the way the property has been run...I would not be surprised if they try to put it up for the next months payment.

marksoton

dburford9 wrote: »

As in the 3 years I have been a resident here - laws have been bypassed by the agent that was running it before. They entered the property themselves whenever they liked, they entered our rooms when they liked, they even bought friends round at 2am one time and played music until 4am and then went round all our rooms looking for a bed to sleep in...and slept in some housemates beds. I had to tell one person to 'bugga' off as they tried to enter my room.

You frickin what?!

G_M

1) Whether you pay the landlord directly, or indirectly via an agent, makes no difference whatsover to the contract.

2) You each have individual contracts; what exactly do they say (or specifically, yours)? How does it describe what you are renting? The garage might/mght not be included.

3) Was there ever a fixed term, or was it periodic (month by month) from the start?

4) Does the contract say anything at all about rent increases?

5) If you are offered a new contract (eg at a new rent) and refuse to sign, or provaricate (delay), your current periodic tenancy will continue unchanged. However be aware that as soon as you pay the new rent you will be legaly assumed to have agreed to it - you cannot then change your mind. So keep paying the current rent.

If the LL still wants to increase the rent (even after you refuse to sign a new ontract) he must either

a) serve a valid S13 notice (& it sounds like he does not know what he's doing so may get this wrong ie just send you a letter which you ignore)

b) serve a S21 notice, go to court, evict you, and find a new tenant - all of which costs him money. More money than the increase in rent I'd gurss......

6) Have you spoken to the council's HMO officer? 4 separate contracts sounds like an HMO, which might/might not require a licence.

7) artful asked earlier: did you pay a deposit? Was it registered and were you served the PI? See:
* Deposits: payment, protection and return

AdrianC

dburford9 wrote: »

As in the 3 years I have been a resident here - laws have been bypassed by the agent that was running it before. They entered the property themselves whenever they liked, they entered our rooms when they liked, they even bought friends round at 2am one time and played music until 4am and then went round all our rooms looking for a bed to sleep in...and slept in some housemates beds. I had to tell one person to 'bugga' off as they tried to enter my room.

Why on earth are you still there?

System

marksoton wrote: »

You frickin what?!

I know. It's beyond ridiculous.

The agent did used to live at the property and I know them (THEY DID NOT LIVE AT THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF THIS INCIDENT).....but they turned up one night at 2am in the morning and had a gathering with music and he let them access our rooms to sleep in. It was near Xmas time so most the tenants were away. Myself and another guy were the only tenants around. I had assumed the agent had been invited back by my fellow tenant as he had also gone out that night. That wasn't the case. The agent had let himself in with no invitation and bought 3 mates with him.....

...and letting them access our rooms to sleep in....

Another housemate came back from his xmas break and found a Santa's hat in his room.....I told him why it was there....some stranger slept in his bed....he was not amused.

GwylimT

Robster88 wrote: »

As has been mentioned I would also be looking into the HMO licence for the property. If the landlord rents to 5 people they will need to get an HMO licence (they do not need this with 4).

The licence would ensure that there are adequate facilities and that the house is safe in terms of fire safety etc.

The legal requirement for 5 people sharing is that there is 1 bathroom with a bath or shower and 1 separate toilet with wash hand basin (this toilet can be another bathroom).

If the house only currently has one toilet then the landlord would not legally be allowed to add another occupier.

From OPs post there isn't going to be a fifth tenant, the garage is simply being rented out as a parking space.

System

G_M wrote: »

1) Whether you pay the landlord directly, or indirectly via an agent, makes no difference whatsover to the contract.

2) You each have individual contracts; what exactly do they say (or specifically, yours)? How does it describe what you are renting? The garage might/mght not be included.

3) Was there ever a fixed term, or was it periodic (month by month) from the start?

4) Does the contract say anything at all about rent increases?

5) If you are offered a new contract (eg at a new rent) and refuse to sign, or provaricate (delay), your current periodic tenancy will continue unchanged. However be aware that as soon as you pay the new rent you will be legaly assumed to have agreed to it - you cannot then change your mind. So keep paying the current rent.

If the LL still wants to increase the rent (even after you refuse to sign a new ontract) he must either

a) serve a valid S13 notice (& it sounds like he does not know what he's doing so may get this wrong ie just send you a letter which you ignore)

b) serve a S21 notice, go to court, evict you, and find a new tenant - all of which costs him money. More money than the increase in rent I'd gurss......

6) Have you spoken to the council's HMO officer? 4 separate contracts sounds like an HMO, which might/might not require a licence.

7) artful asked earlier: did you pay a deposit? Was it registered and were you served the PI? See:
* Deposits: payment, protection and return

The contracts are very basic. They basically say...

You (me) rent out a double room at the back of the house, you pay £*** amount per month on this date. You have paid £*** deposit.

That's pretty much it. Nothing about rent increases and nothing about the rest of the property.


It's always been a month-by-month contract.


There are now 5 people living in the house as the downstairs office has been rented out as a bedroom.


I have paid the owner the usual rent for this month.


The deposit was looked after by the agent. I have received it back from them. No idea if it was registered in a safety deposit. Probably not based on how the property was run by the agent.

I am soon going to be giving the deposit to the owner, but want to see this new contract first....I was thinking they may ask for a higher deposit if they are putting the rent up. From what you are saying - it seems I should only pay the original deposit.

Can't the owner change the contract if they give 1 months notice?

I will pay whatever the increase is....but will likely look to move out in the coming months if the rental increase is too much.

Have not spoken to an HMO officer.

Dird

[Deleted User] wrote:

I would say that the garage and the rent are two seperate things. If you were amicable to him taking half you can't now say you're not because you don't want the rent going up, they're nothing to do with each other.

Well they've initially agreed to pay x amount per month for the house which includes a garage for storage/whatever. They've agreed that x amount is still an acceptable amount for the house space, minus half the garage. x+£200 might have been acceptable with a fully with the whole property to themselves still but not when some potential rapist is parking in their garage.

Have all 4 been told of the rent increase? If so you should get together & stand your ground (agree in advance) that you're OK with them renting half the garage out but not with any rent increase. The LL has just sacked the agent, he's not going to evict you for refusing else he'll have the hassle of finding 4 new tenants or in most likelihood, paying a new letting agent to sort it

AdrianC

Dird wrote: »

Well they've initially agreed to pay x amount per month for the house which includes a garage for storage/whatever.

No, they've agreed £x/mo for a bedroom - plus shared access to unspecified common areas, with no guarantees that those common areas will remain unchanged. They've already been reduced once, by the sound, with the conversion of a downstairs "office" room to a bedroom, which was accepted despite being, many would argue, a more serious reduction in common area.