Second home - rent out a room and stay there weekends

da_rule

Have you also considered that when you buy your new house you will have to pay the higher rate of stamp duty?

Guest101

Just rent the whole property.


At the minute this rent-a-room scheme wont work. It's not your primary residence.

booksurr

Guest101 wrote: »

Just rent the whole property.


At the minute this rent-a-room scheme wont work. It's not your primary residence.

I disagree. If the tenant is selected carefully and understands that they will be sharing the property with the homeowner, then the relationship boundaries are established correctly. The tenant needs to understand that some "rules" will be lodger type things and not the free for all that a tenant would normally get. But that should be obvious from the fact it is advertised as a house share so no applicant can expect free range anyway.

Yes it does make it a different situation to the normal lodger or normal sole tenant and means the homeowner does have to compromise about what is going on in the house they probably still think of as home, but, if there is a justification for wanting to have accommodation in that area which the owner will need to use on a regular basis then the financial model works well in my experience at a zero net cost or small profit.

However, I would agree that it is not worth doing if looking for a significant income to live off. AirBnB may be an alternative and give higher returns for a concentrated period but of course brings with it significant levels of work to turnaround the property. From a tax perspective is no different to "ordinary" letting unless you meet the qualifying conditions for a furnished holiday let, such as it being available for at least 205 days and actually occupied for at least 155 days each tax year (amongst other tests)

Guest101

booksurr wrote: »

I disagree. If the tenant is selected carefully and understands that they will be sharing the property with the homeowner, then the relationship boundaries are established correctly. - But that doesn't make a difference to the rent-a-room scheme. Further, if said tenant then has difficulty and for example presents as homeless to the council (or soon to be) the council would likely consider this a tenancy, not a lodger. The tenant needs to understand that some "rules" will be lodger type things and not the free for all that a tenant would normally get. But that should be obvious from the fact it is advertised as a house share so no applicant can expect free range anyway. - Saying it's not a tenancy, doesn't make it not a tenancy. Do you not think that literally thousands of rogue landlord would do this?

Yes it does make it a different situation to the normal lodger or normal sole tenant and means the homeowner does have to compromise about what is going on in the house they probably still think of as home, but, if there is a justification for wanting to have accommodation in that area which the owner will need to use on a regular basis then the financial model works well in my experience at a zero net cost or small profit. - I'm sure financially it's attractive, I'm concerned about legally.

However, I would agree that it is not worth doing if looking for a significant income to live off.

All a 'lodger' would need to do is change the locks one day and that would be it.

booksurr

Guest101 wrote: »

All a 'lodger' would need to do is change the locks one day and that would be it.

no where did I ever say it was a lodger. read my first post. I said from the start this is a AST tenant scenario to which the rent a room scheme cannot apply. I hardly need tell you it is perfectly legal and frequently done that you let a specific room on an AST in a house where others share the common parts - in this case one happens to be the owner,

my subsequent post that you quote is dealing with the practicalities of the living arrangements where psychology of both parties needs to accept it is neither a pure lodger nor pure tenancy as for significant periods of time the paying occupant will be there on their own but not with the freedom to do as they please. I am talking about practical house rules, not the AST tenancy agreement .

Guest101

booksurr wrote: »

no where did I ever say it was a lodger. read my first post. I said from the start this is a AST tenant scenario to which the rent a room scheme cannot apply

my subsequent post that you quoteis dealing with the practicalities of the living arrangements where psychology of both parties needs to accept it is neither a pure lodger nor pure tenancy as for significant periods of time the paying occupant will be there on their own but not with the freedom to do as they please

Sorry my mistake

firely2327

kunkj wrote: »

firely2327 do you have enough of a buffer to keep your Wales home after you move without renting it out? In which case, why not rent in England first to give you flexibility on the England side too before committing to that? ]

Thanks kunkj

Was interested in finding out the answers to the HMO thing too!

Can't do rental I'm afraid, on multiple grounds. Firstly sanity. An extra move, no ta;)
Secondly, I've a house full of animals (okay, five), so that severely limited the rental market for me plus added stress for them too. The England thing is a job I've had for a few years, I'm merely returning to it after a sabbatical, so I know I like it, just not fond of living there (Manchester - England itself is fine).


Oh, and I've made the decision to just sell up. I think it's best in the long term and will be less stressful. If I do feel the West calling on a regular basis I may just invest in a camper further down the line