lodger in my Annexe

Guest101

Jenniefour wrote: »

I don't know if you've read the backstory to this and I don't know how to provide the link. But I would say the status of the tenant is possibly the least of OP's concerns at the moment. Not unimportant and should not to be ignored, but, in the bigger scheme of things, it's one issue amongst several others. In previous post OP said this person is a friend which implied this is some kind of informal arrangement. If that turns out now not to be the case, then that's another headache to deal with, as the issues you raised will then be very important as well.

It's a planning permission issue which has sprouted some headache complications. OP needs to know how to manage the meeting next Tuesday with a planning officer.

OP - I would be finding a way to put off that meeting (e.g. you're sick) until a way through all this becomes clear. I'm sat here wondering why you didn't remove that kitchen pronto, and if there is a way through all this - and there might not be as things might have gone too far now. That might mean seeking urgent legal advice from a property law solicitor - a jolly good one who really knows their stuff. Will cost you money now but might be able to see a way through all of this that might save future headaches. But you do need to get all this on a legal footing that makes sense.

I would also, if it's possible, be asking your friend to move into the house and out of the annexe. That will then make clear whether you have a lodger or a tenant. I do hope you're not close the edge financially and are not heavily dependent on the rent to get by. But, as far as I know, it is OK for those who are in receipt of benefits to be a lodger.

It is, but - and here's the key bit. The council may get involved in the tenancy dispute if or when the tenant needs to be rehomed.


I would avoid at all costs anything that interferes with the tenants rights. Because the council could prosecute for harassment, illegal eviction etc etc. - it's unlikely, but it does happen.

dariune

Wow so many replies.

It is not an informal tenancy. We have an official lisence agreement signed and witnessed and I made the Council aware of the details when I got her in.

I didn't remove the kitchen because i didn't think I needed to. The Council were sent the plans for my property when i bought the house and made clear my intensions.

My lodger (Tenant) often uses our kitchen and living room as her kitchen is small and it's just one room with an onsuite so has no living room or space for a TV so in that respect she is very much like a lodger. The door between her room and the rest of the room remains unlocked so she can walk in and out as she pleases.

Why seek legal aid? I have been upfront and honest about what I am doing to all of the authorities as far as I know. Certainly if I have done anything illegally it was unintensional.

The separate banding was only conclusive from 8 weeks ago when the result from the tribunal came through and if I was supposed to change my lodger to a tenant (Contractually) at that stage I wasn't made aware.

Jenniefour

Guest101 wrote: »

It is, but - and here's the key bit. The council may get involved in the tenancy dispute if or when the tenant needs to be rehomed.


I would avoid at all costs anything that interferes with the tenants rights. Because the council could prosecute for harassment, illegal eviction etc etc. - it's unlikely, but it does happen.

Apologies, point taken re possible future tenancy dispute. And didn't intend to imply your contribution was irrelevant or inappropriate.

If OP had said in previous post he had a lodger (and no mention of friend) I would not have suggested he ask her to move into the house, especially as she's paid the council tax (which would a be smart way to reinforce the legal status of tenant, for those who would know this). If, on the off chance, this is a situation that might be able to be amicably changed then it might be worthwhile. Or it might not. Yes, I take your point about interfering with tenant rights and so on.

Guest101

dariune wrote: »

Wow so many replies.

It is not an informal tenancy. We have an official lisence agreement signed and witnessed and I made the Council aware of the details when I got her in. - Look, there is no such thing as 'official' you have a bit of paper, which claims one thing, but the law clearly says it is another. you have a TENANT!

I didn't remove the kitchen because i didn't think I needed to. The Council were sent the plans for my property when i bought the house and made clear my intensions. - irrelevant. Legally you'd be foolish to try remove it now

My lodger (Tenant) often uses our kitchen and living room as her kitchen is small and it's just one room with an onsuite so has no living room or space for a TV so in that respect she is very much like a lodger. - irrelevant that you invite your tenant round. The door between her room and the rest of the room remains unlocked so she can walk in and out as she pleases. - still not relevant

Why seek legal aid? I have been upfront and honest about what I am doing to all of the authorities as far as I know. Certainly if I have done anything illegally it was unintensional. - ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

The separate banding was only conclusive from 8 weeks ago when the result from the tribunal came through and if I was supposed to change my lodger to a tenant (Contractually) at that stage I wasn't made aware.

Not contractually. my statute they are a tenant. You cannot impose any new terms now anyway. (you can ask, but the tenant can say no)

dariune

Guest101 wrote: »

Not contractually. my statute they are a tenant. You cannot impose any new terms now anyway. (you can ask, but the tenant can say no)

I am neither trying to impose terms nor undermine the law. And I am not disputing whether they are a tenant or a lodger. You seem quite frustrated by an argument we aren't having.

I didn't invite my TENANT round. Part of her agreement is that she can come and go as she pleases. because I thought she was a lodger. She didn't pay Council Tax, she lived in a room (Albeit a self contained room) in our house and she had access to the rest of the property. (Except my bedroom). From the guidelines I found online that is the definition of a lodger. If she is a tenant now then fine thats what she is.

While ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law I am still not sure how I have broken the law. If I have had confirmation from the District Council throughout the process that what I am doing is acceptable how does that mean I am not doing something illegal? Does the change of banding make what I am doing illegal?

I genuinely do not understand what it is you think I have got wrong here and am desperately trying to understand.

i am just asking from you all what it is the Council are looking for when they come round.

00ec25

dariune wrote: »

The separate banding was only conclusive from 8 weeks ago when the result from the tribunal came through and if I was supposed to change my lodger to a tenant (Contractually) at that stage I wasn't made aware.

EDIT - just seen your latest post...

as it the case in the majority of such instances, the annex was only allowed to be built on condition that the planning permission did not allow it to be let out as a separate residence

you are in breach of that planning permission - that is not "illegal" in that sense of the word, but it could have repercussions entirely at the decision of the council planning dept. They will have little or no interest in its council tax status since planning and CT are 2 separate depts at the council and do not tread on each other's territory unnecessarily. The planning dept can issue an instruction to force you to make changes to the annex so that it is no longer self contained, or they can tell you to stop letting it. Their decision

for as long as the annex retains a functional kitchen and/or bathroom (however small either may be) the VOA will continue to say it must have its own CT banding as those are the crucial factors which have been tested many times at tribunals. The CT banding has nothing to do with the planning permission and the banding will remain in place until the VOA says otherwise

the separate CT bill for the annex is legally the liability of the occupant of the annex whilst it remains a separately defined annex. That is council tax law. Who pays the bill in actual fact is irrelevant

if your physical living arrangements are such that the occupier with basic protection "hardly uses" the annex kitchen, then remove that annex kitchen! That will negate the separate CT banding and at the same time also remove any doubt that you are breaching planning permission by letting a self contained annex as you can then show that you have a full blown lodger who must, of necessity, share common facilities with you but whose bedroom just so happens to be where it is.


your reticence to make the structural changes to the annex to deal with the CT and PP issues implies your desire to solve this is not that strong? Bear in mind if/when you sell the property the separate annex will doubtless be picked up by the purchaser's solicitor and will therefore still haunt you.

Guest101

dariune wrote: »

I am neither trying to impose terms nor undermine the law. And I am not disputing whether they are a tenant or a lodger. You seem quite frustrated by an argument we aren't having. - It seems you are though, you referred to an official agreement where she is a licensee. I'm saying that agreement is worthless.

I didn't invite my TENANT round. Part of her agreement is that she can come and go as she pleases. because I thought she was a lodger. - Fine, but that is still your choice. It doesn't affect her status. She didn't pay Council Tax, she lived in a room (Albeit a self contained room) in our house and she had access to the rest of the property. (Except my bedroom). From the guidelines I found online that is the definition of a lodger. If she is a tenant now then fine thats what she is. - indeed. Landlords aren't able to claim lodger status simply by giving tenants access to their kitchen.

While ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law I am still not sure how I have broken the law. - you haven't protected her deposit for a start. Presumably you haven't been paying tax either? If I have had confirmation from the District Council throughout the process that what I am doing is acceptable how does that mean I am not doing something illegal? - Why do you think the district council would regulate a tenancy? Does the change of banding make what I am doing illegal? - having a tenant is not illegal, the other circumstances are however.

I genuinely do not understand what it is you think I have got wrong here and am desperately trying to understand.

ok:


1: protect the deposit today
2: have you registered for self-assessment tax? if not do it today
3: Ensure that your tenant has the renters guide
4: have you carried out right to rent checks? if not do so today


if anything else comes up i'll add

dariune

Thats an odd conclusion to come to. I asked at the tribunbal if removing the Kitchen would remove the separate banding and the judge said that would be Tax avoidance and therefore illegal. That is why I haven't removed it. bear in mind I didn't build the extension, I bought the house soon after it was finished.

Once again i want to confirm I phoned the Council before and after I purchased the property, sent them plans and asked if I could have a lodger in the Annexe and they stated that i could as long as they had access to the rest of the property and Vice versa. They knew then that it had a kitchen and bathroom.

I have accepted the separate banding and am not disputing that. And have been paying it until they put it in my lodgers name. I am trying to get it put back in my name currently.

dariune

Guest101 wrote: »

ok:


1: protect the deposit today
2: have you registered for self-assessment tax? if not do it today
3: Ensure that your tenant has the renters guide
4: have you carried out right to rent checks? if not do so today


if anything else comes up i'll add

Thankyou.

1) I will do that this afternoon.
2) I was under the impression that under a certain amount you don't pay tax? It's only £600 a month
3) On it
4) No. But I will do.

Guest101

dariune wrote: »

Thats an odd conclusion to come to. I asked at the tribunbal if removing the Kitchen would remove the separate banding and the judge said that would be Tax avoidance and therefore illegal. That is why I haven't removed it. bear in mind I didn't build the extension, I bought the house soon after it was finished.

Once again i want to confirm I phoned the Council before and after I purchased the property, sent them plans and asked if I could have a lodger in the Annexe and they stated that i could as long as they had access to the rest of the property and Vice versa. They knew then that it had a kitchen and bathroom.

I have accepted the separate banding and am not disputing that. And have been paying it until they put it in my lodgers name. I am trying to get it put back in my name currently.

Why? - you could just pay it anyway.