Buy to let on a right to buy house

restless6

Oh this was my post ! I haven’t been on this site for while and this post is for sone reason currently near the top of the board - so a little update ...
I left my house empty for over a year, I moved away into a private rental . I got into debt paying my mortgage and rent and two lots of council tax .
i have now recently rented my house out . I have consent to let and a nice tenant.
I decided not to sell the house as I might move back there one day .

oldbikebloke

theselfishaltruist said:

Alternatively, you could take in lodgers, and then move out (although keeping your access). This way you are not renting the house it, you are taking in licensees which not the same as taking in a tenant. If you have possession of the property still, you are still the homeowner under the law. You don't have to live somewhere to be in possession, you could just leave some of your bits and pieces and make sure the lodgers have a clear contract detailing their rights as lodgers. This is common with council tenants who want to move out but cant legally sublet. If s lodger is living in the house, paying rent, this is NOT subletting as long as you can enter the property without being a trespasser. You could even rent out all rooms etc, and just make sure its clear in your contract you still have access. 
 
It's a free country, do what you need to do for your own interests.

it is a free country and people post utter nonsense at times.
do you have any idea at all how to prove it remains your main home at which you reside so they remain "lodgers" so your "advice" has some basis in reality?

theselfishaltruist

oldbikebloke said:

theselfishaltruist said:

Alternatively, you could take in lodgers, and then move out (although keeping your access). This way you are not renting the house it, you are taking in licensees which not the same as taking in a tenant. If you have possession of the property still, you are still the homeowner under the law. You don't have to live somewhere to be in possession, you could just leave some of your bits and pieces and make sure the lodgers have a clear contract detailing their rights as lodgers. This is common with council tenants who want to move out but cant legally sublet. If s lodger is living in the house, paying rent, this is NOT subletting as long as you can enter the property without being a trespasser. You could even rent out all rooms etc, and just make sure its clear in your contract you still have access. 
 
It's a free country, do what you need to do for your own interests.

it is a free country and people post utter nonsense at times.
do you have any idea at all how to prove it remains your main home at which you reside so they remain "lodgers" so your "advice" has some basis in reality?

Hi. being in occupation of a property is actually a massive grey area in English law. For example, a student who lives with parents who lives at the university during term time, or a person who goes backpacking in China for months. These people can still argue that their original home is their primary home, even if they aren't actually living there at the time. Also consider things like extended holidays (at what point does it move from holiday, to you've moved out). If I decide to go exploring the antarctic and get lost for a year, does it mean I no longer live in the property I am paying rent/mortgage on? The fact is, there is no definitive answer in most instances. Banks don't have the time or resources to delve into these matters in great depth. They aren't going to set up cameras to check you are in the property every night. If you wanted to move out and have someone else live there, then have them sign a contract saying they're a lodger, and move. There is nothing to stop you, and you are not in breach of any laws. If the bank want to sue you (which they won't) then a court can decide if you have in fact moved out. People on this forum often don't realise how unspecific property law is. It is mostly common law with no definitive answers on most question, and is fact specific to the cases in question. This is a good thing, as people's situations are often messy and unclear. 

I'll give you two examples from case law: a Saudi princess had not lived in a London flat for a year, and had hired staff to take care of it, and all of her stuff was left behind. The court decided she was not in "possession", but in another case, a woman had merely had some belongings in the home, despite the fact she had not entered it for a year was in possession. THERE ARE NO CLEAR ANSWERS is my point, and my suggestion is to do the thing that is in your interests to do.
The legal system is here to benefit us. 

theselfishaltruist

restless6 said:

Oh this was my post ! I haven’t been on this site for while and this post is for sone reason currently near the top of the board - so a little update ...
I left my house empty for over a year, I moved away into a private rental . I got into debt paying my mortgage and rent and two lots of council tax .
i have now recently rented my house out . I have consent to let and a nice tenant.
I decided not to sell the house as I might move back there one day .

I'm glad it worked out for you; as I suspected, no problem to rent out your own home and you would get moved onto a different mortgage product. Out of interest, did they increase your mortgage interest rate?

oldbikebloke

theselfishaltruist said:

Hi. being in occupation of a property is actually a massive grey area in English law. For example, a student who lives with parents who lives at the university during term time, or a person who goes backpacking in China for months.

so you accept that the law is grey, so why do you write an opinion as a fact?
legally students are deemed to have their term time residence as their main home, not the parental address

if you go on "holiday" it is a matter of fact whether you INTEND to return and therefore if it continues to be your main (/only) residence

your post is simply encouraging someone to commit tax fraud by claiming to have a lodger when, I agree, only the courts will decide for sure. However, there is a huge amount of case law establishing that "main residence will be judged on a "matter of facts", and simply having a few possessions in a place is in no way guaranteed to turn someone into a lodger.

Your "advice" can be summarised as: try your luck and hope you do not get challenged. 

there is a well established (in court) set of "tests" of main residence. I suggest you look them up before continuing to encourage people to believe a resident landlord  is simply what you say it is

theselfishaltruist

oldbikebloke said:

theselfishaltruist said:

Hi. being in occupation of a property is actually a massive grey area in English law. For example, a student who lives with parents who lives at the university during term time, or a person who goes backpacking in China for months.

so you accept that the law is grey, so why do you write an opinion as a fact?
legally students are deemed to have their term time residence as their main home, not the parental address

if you go on "holiday" it is a matter of fact whether you INTEND to return and therefore if it continues to be your main (/only) residence

your post is simply encouraging someone to commit tax fraud by claiming to have a lodger when, I agree, only the courts will decide for sure. However, there is a huge amount of case law establishing that "main residence will be judged on a "matter of facts", and simply having a few possessions in a place is in no way guaranteed to turn someone into a lodger.

Your "advice" can be summarised as: try your luck and hope you do not get challenged. 

there is a well established (in court) set of "tests" of main residence. I suggest you look them up before continuing to encourage people to believe a resident landlord  is simply what you say it is

I don't believe I wrote anything as fact, the only fact is here is that the law is very complicated with huge grey areas, particularly on what is defined as possession and occupation. I'm interested to know which law states a student's term address is their main residence?
Again, if I decide to go to China tomorrow for an undisclosed time for a Buddhist spiritual awakening and not coming back until that happens, there is nothing saying I have moved out. Again, you assume too much about what we can and cannot answer, therefore the best approach is to what it is in your personal interest, is it not?

But beyond that, why is the advice here often encouraging people NOT to do the thing they would like to do. It is an important question here. Often these posts go like this: I would like to do X, people reply, you should not do X because of this or that, without really giving a concrete reason as not to or having a strong legal justification to back up what they are saying. I find all of this very interesting and a little concerning. We should be thinking of ways to help people, not tell them what they're doing is wrong.

If something is illegal, fine, tell them why, but in 9/10 cases I've witnessed, there is no clear answer, yet people still tell them not to do it... anyway. 

theselfishaltruist

oldbikebloke said:

theselfishaltruist said:

Hi. being in occupation of a property is actually a massive grey area in English law. For example, a student who lives with parents who lives at the university during term time, or a person who goes backpacking in China for months.

so you accept that the law is grey, so why do you write an opinion as a fact?
legally students are deemed to have their term time residence as their main home, not the parental address

if you go on "holiday" it is a matter of fact whether you INTEND to return and therefore if it continues to be your main (/only) residence

your post is simply encouraging someone to commit tax fraud by claiming to have a lodger when, I agree, only the courts will decide for sure. However, there is a huge amount of case law establishing that "main residence will be judged on a "matter of facts", and simply having a few possessions in a place is in no way guaranteed to turn someone into a lodger.

Your "advice" can be summarised as: try your luck and hope you do not get challenged. 

there is a well established (in court) set of "tests" of main residence. I suggest you look them up before continuing to encourage people to believe a resident landlord  is simply what you say it is

Hi. I am aware of the residence tests in court, and they are nowhere near as simple as you claim them to be. There are various factors to consider, such as: what the contract says (a lodging contract which clearly stipulates your right to possess the property is strong evidence of possession as courts like written evidence), are your possessions there? where you have gone? your intentions, your bill payments (are you, for example, paying the gas?), do you have a tenancy elsewhere? etc etc.....