Landlord trying to stop me any overnight guests under any circumstances

saajan_12

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Since you are a lodger you are not obliged to stay for the length of the agreement, nor is he obliged to let you stay if he is unhappy with you.

Sorry this is just not true. As a lodger OP doesn’t have a tenancy and hence statutory tenancy law doesn’t apply (e.g. eviction rules, notice periods). However OP and LL still signed a straightforward contract with a minimum term and as such both must comply. Otherwise, the party that breached the contract would be liable for the other’s costs through a civil / small claims court if necessary. Ofcourse as it’s the landlord’s home they can kick out OP at any time, but OP could sue for any losses e.g. moving costs, extra rent if they couldn’t find something else at the same price. Similarly OP can physically choose to leave at any time, but would be liable for the rent for the minimum term.

moneyistooshorttomention

saajan_12 wrote: »

Sorry this is just not true. As a lodger OP doesn’t have a tenancy and hence statutory tenancy law doesn’t apply (e.g. eviction rules, notice periods). However OP and LL still signed a straightforward contract with a minimum term and as such both must comply. Otherwise, the party that breached the contract would be liable for the other’s costs through a civil / small claims court if necessary. Ofcourse as it’s the landlord’s home they can kick out OP at any time, but OP could sue for any losses e.g. moving costs, extra rent if they couldn’t find something else at the same price. Similarly OP can physically choose to leave at any time, but would be liable for the rent for the minimum term.

That's sorted then I would say. The landlord has "breached the contract" by trying to impose terms that weren't in the contract.

Pixie5740

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

If this letting agency insists on sticking to the contract - then they must be told that the landlord must stick to his side of the contract (ie accepting overnight visitors - as per non-lodger accommodation). In those circumstances (ie of going back to the letting agency) I'd give them the ultimatum (ie either make the landlord stick to the contract OR accept the contract has been terminated by the landlord).

EDIT; This landlord might well try to act like he doesnt understand what the agency are saying to him (pleading "language barrier"). That's tough - on HIM.

What are you talking about? It is very unlikely that any contract exists between the letting agent and the OP. It's not the letting agent that will be making the OP stick to the contract it will be the person he has a contract with i.e. the landlord.

What makes you think the OP has an AST? It's quite possible for a landlord to have a fixed term contract with an excluded occupier. It's not recommended but it is possible.

Mojisola

When_the_going_gets_tough wrote: »

You need to take advice from shelter or similar.

joelpellington wrote: »

I'm getting back in contact with thew lettings agency for them to give me the go ahead to give him an ultimatum of either I move or he compromises. I just need to make sure they'll back me up that he can't hold me to the 6 month contract if he's treating me as a lodger.

Get advice before you talk to the LA.

saajan_12

What are you talking about?!

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

It is correct that the landlord can lay down this rule basically - in view of the fact that you are a lodger in his home.

BUT - the landlord can't have it both ways.

a. Either you are a lodger in his home and he can prevent you having overnight visitors

OR

b. it is the standard "all tenants together and the landlord lives elsewhere" agreement.What standard agreement might that be? Either way the OP knew they were renting a room not the whole place and did not know the other occupiers. The landlord is allowed access to the common areas. OP, what address was given for the landlord?

The landlord needs to make up his mind which of these two situations it is. He cannot both expect you to treat it as a lodger arrangement AND expect you to stick to the type of agreement appropriate to option b. You can have a formal agreement in a lodging situation, so the agreement can be 'appropriate' to either 'option'

It is either option a. or option b. and not some sort of mish-mash hybrid arrangement of both - and he gets to cherrypick that he won't have overnight visitors but he will expect you to stick to original contract. Again, there is no cherry picking. The terms of the contract stand, and the landlord can still specify who enters his home.

In your position - I'd point this out to him and ask him which of those two options it is. Followed by pointing out to him that - if it's option a. - then the contract doesn't apply (ie because you are a lodger) and you are free to move out whenever you like without penalty. Personally - I'd probably cover myself for proof that I had acted correctly - by presenting him with these two options in the form of a letter (copy kept) and asking him which option he was going to go for and telling him the original contract didn't apply (ie because you had not signed up to be a lodger). I'd send that letter by post (proof of posting kept) and also hand him a copy physically. That wouldn't be a particularly 'correct' course of action whether its done formally or over cake! OP is a lodger with a contract specifying extra clauses like minimum term, and so is in a weak bargaining position. The Landlord could ignore any such letter / ultimatum.
If he makes out he doesnt understand the letter - then the onus is on him to find someone that can translate it for him.

I've had lodgers before now - and some of them did let me down - but I couldn't enforce the agreement we had made (ie that they would stay a certain length of time) and had to just "grit teeth" and accept it if they broke that agreement and moved out early. Ofcourse you can't physicallly force them to stay, but you could have sued them for the remaining rent if you could prove you agreed a certain term. The fact that you chose to 'grit teeth' doesn't mean the LL can't enforce the contract.

He's trying to have his cake and eat it at present. Blow any language barrier he is trying to make out exists - the onus is on him to understand you one way or another. Why would that be? There is no distinction on LL / lodger here.

If he tried to continue "having his cake and eating it" - then you have 2 options:

a. Stick to the arrangement you made in the first place whatever he thinks - ie have the girlfriend to stay whenever you decideYou can do that, but the LL can choose to have the girlfriend removed using police if necessary.

OR

b. Move out immediately and ignore any contract you have with him. If he tries chasing you - then you could explain to anyone objective what the original agreement had been and that he was the one that broke it in the first place (ie by moving in unexpectedly) and produce your copy of the letter you had given/sent him. Therefore - as you'd unexpectedly been turned into a lodger - he was the one that made the contract invalid (not you).
If the OP physically moved in before the LL and rooms were rented individually, there is no exclusion on the LL from 'renting' another room from himself. At best OP would be a Tenant rather than Lodger and hence still has the rights of a Tenant (i.e. girlfriend allowed, cannot be evicted without court..) but that doesn't mean the LL has breached anything. OP would still be liable for the rent.

I see there are 2 cases:
1) LL moved in before OP: The OP's tenancy started when they moved in (not when contracts were signed) and at that point they knew about the LL. They moved in as a Lodger (so LL can exclude girlfriend etc) with a contract specifying minimum term. LL can lock OP out but would be sued for any of OP's losses. OP liable for rent for the minimum term.

2) LL moved in after OP: OP still has rights as a Tenant in an HMO. Landlord may move into another room and has access to common areas, but OP has right to invite girlfriend. Neither party has breached, and neither can end agreement early. LL must use courts to evict.

HouseBuyer77

Sorry this is just not true. As a lodger OP doesn’t have a tenancy and hence statutory tenancy law doesn’t apply (e.g. eviction rules, notice periods). However OP and LL still signed a straightforward contract with a minimum term and as such both must comply

Well that's the thing. The status of the OP is uncertain.

If when they moved into the property they were given an AST contract to sign and the LL wasn't living in the property then the LL cannot just turn them into a lodger.

If the AST was solely for them and referred to their room and common parts (i.e. a standard HMO AST) then I think the LL could choose to move in, but OP still has full tenancy rights. In particular the LL can't have any say over guests (assuming it was a standard AST without specific guest provisions in the contract).

If the AST was a shared tenancy for the house (all tenants signed same contract, they're jointly and severally liable for the rent) then LL can't move in at all.

If was just a standard lodging agreement OP mistook for a 6 month AST then they'll just have to put up with the LL's rules.

G_M

A quick skim read and

* OP is living in the landlord's home
* OP is a lodger
* LL can set down rules for his home eg no overnight guests
* OP has signed a 6 month contract - so is commited to 6 months
* OP could negotiate a surrender of the contract if the LL agrees
* if OP left early without such an agreement, LL could sue - but would he?
* with 3 (4?) 'households' sharing the property this might be an HMO. Depends on local council's policy - check their wesite or call and ask. If so that could provide leverage to pursuade LL to release OP from contract

saajan_12

HouseBuyer77 wrote: »

Well that's the thing. The status of the OP is uncertain.

If when they moved into the property they were given an AST contract to sign and the LL wasn't living in the property then the LL cannot just turn them into a lodger.

If the AST was solely for them and referred to their room and common parts (i.e. a standard HMO AST) then I think the LL could choose to move in, but OP still has full tenancy rights. In particular the LL can't have any say over guests (assuming it was a standard AST without specific guest provisions in the contract).

If the AST was a shared tenancy for the house (all tenants signed same contract, they're jointly and severally liable for the rent) then LL can't move in at all.

If was just a standard lodging agreement OP mistook for a 6 month AST then they'll just have to put up with the LL's rules.

I do agree, I assumed it was a simple 6month agreement (might have referred to Tenants but that doesn't make it so) but before move in, the OP knew the LL would be there.

I have somewhat clarified this in my 2nd post that the LL cannot unilatterally make them into a lodger after the Tenancy had begun.

joelpellington

When I viewed the house, all three rooms were available, and me and another boy signed for two of those rooms, then a month later when I moved in and signed the contract when I picked up the keys from the letting agency, the letting agency told me another agency had let the room out to someone, I got there and he was living there in the third room. We were under the impression he was living there applying finishing touches before everyone moved in.
Therefore I signed under the impression that I was a normal tenant, but does this mean nothing if he was there from the start of me living there?

moneyistooshorttomention

One point that hasnt come up to date is what does the other tenant think about this?? Presumably - he also had a contract to start with? Presumably he also has been told by the landlord that he isn't allowed overnight visitors?

Strength in numbers...(hopefully) or is he being a wimp and rolling over and letting LL walk over him?