Does Rent-a-Room apply?

trailingspouse

I'm planning on taking in a lodger and renting out the top floor of my house (two good-sized rooms and a shower room), and hope to be able to take advantage of the Rent-a-Room scheme.


However, reading up on it, this sentence has puzzled me -
Alternatively, a resident landlord can take advantage of the Rent a Room allowance; but only if the let is of furnished rooms rather than, for example a whole converted flat which is part of the house.

The lodger would have one room as a bedroom, and the other room (which already has a small sink in it) would be a loung/kitchenette (kettle and microwave, but no space for much more than that). There's a shower room with toilet and whb on the same floor. Also there's a large walk-in cupboard on the same floor which the lodger wouldn't have access to (as there's no loft, this is where we keep things like the Christmas decorations and the suitcases). Would this arrangement be looked on as 'furnished rooms' or 'a whole converted flat'? It wouldn't be self-contained, and I would be accessing to clean etc. I would also be expecting the lodger to use the main kitchen if they wanted to cook more than a ready meal or a pot noodle.


This is a new venture for me, so any thoughts would be appreciated.

Comms69

trailingspouse wrote: »

I'm planning on taking in a lodger and renting out the top floor of my house (two good-sized rooms and a shower room), and hope to be able to take advantage of the Rent-a-Room scheme.


However, reading up on it, this sentence has puzzled me -
Alternatively, a resident landlord can take advantage of the Rent a Room allowance; but only if the let is of furnished rooms rather than, for example a whole converted flat which is part of the house.

The lodger would have one room as a bedroom, and the other room (which already has a small sink in it) would be a loung/kitchenette (kettle and microwave, but no space for much more than that). There's a shower room with toilet and whb on the same floor. Also there's a large walk-in cupboard on the same floor which the lodger wouldn't have access to (as there's no loft, this is where we keep things like the Christmas decorations and the suitcases). Would this arrangement be looked on as 'furnished rooms' or 'a whole converted flat'? It wouldn't be self-contained, and I would be accessing to clean etc. I would also be expecting the lodger to use the main kitchen if they wanted to cook more than a ready meal or a pot noodle.


This is a new venture for me, so any thoughts would be appreciated.

As long as the lodger has access to 'your' areas of the house you should be fine. BUT you rent(let)-a-room, not two rooms and a bathroom.


Why are you complicating it??

trailingspouse

I didn't know I was complicating it!!


The attic is available, and would make a nice living space for someone - and I need the money. So far so simple. Round here, single rooms go for about £400 pcm, but with two rooms and an en suite I could probably get closer to the £625 pcm that equates to the £7,500 tax free sum in the scheme.



So are you saying the 'Rent-a-Room' scheme only applies if you're renting out a single room? Cos the section I quoted refers to 'furnished rooms' in the plural.

G_M

trailingspouse wrote: »

I'm planning on taking in a lodger and renting out the top floor of my house (two good-sized rooms and a shower room), and hope to be able to take advantage of the Rent-a-Room scheme.


However, reading up on it, this sentence has puzzled me -
Alternatively, a resident landlord can take advantage of the Rent a Room allowance; but only if the let is of furnished rooms rather than, for example a whole converted flat which is part of the house.

The lodger would have one room as a bedroom, and the other room (which already has a small sink in it) would be a loung/kitchenette (kettle and microwave, but no space for much more than that). There's a shower room with toilet and whb on the same floor. Also there's a large walk-in cupboard on the same floor which the lodger wouldn't have access to (as there's no loft, this is where we keep things like the Christmas decorations and the suitcases). Would this arrangement be looked on as 'furnished rooms' or 'a whole converted flat'? It wouldn't be self-contained, and I would be accessing to clean etc. I would also be expecting the lodger to use the main kitchen if they wanted to cook more than a ready meal or a pot noodle.


This is a new venture for me, so any thoughts would be appreciated.

The distinction is between having a lodger in your home, and letting a self-contained unit to a tenant.

If the area is clearly self-contained, and for the occupant's sole use, he'd be a tenant.

Similarly if the occupant has acces to and use of other shared parts of your property (your kitchen, living room etc) he's a lodger.

There is no hard description that categorizes these arrangements in a black & white way - each circumstance would be assessed by a court (the ultimate arbiter) on its merits.

You going in to provide cleaning services (weekly bedding? etc) might be one additional factor taken into account, but it's hard to say definitively whether this would be a lodger or a tenant.

And unless or until HMRC bang on your door for some reason, or the courts get involved (eg over a disputed eviction process), it may matter not a jot!

sevenhills

trailingspouse wrote: »

The lodger would have one room as a bedroom, and the other room (which already has a small sink in it) would be a loung/kitchenette (kettle and microwave, but no space for much more than that). There's a shower room with toilet and whb on the same floor.

Lodgers generally have access to your kitchen and living room, you seem to be giving them their own bathroom and kitchen.
You are complicating things by making it appear to be a self contained flat. A self contain flat has totally different rules and regulations.

trailingspouse

Ah - I though self-contained meant it had it's own entrance, or at least a lock on the door? This wouldn't have.

They would be welcome to use the main living room, kitchen and have a bath in the bathroom if they wanted (the attic shower room is just that) - but would have their own space if that's what they preferred.



Hmm, it sounds like the difference between lodger and tenant is a bit more complex than I thought. I thought that basically if you occupy the whole flat/house and the landlord doesn't live there, you were a tenant, but if you occupy part of a house and the landlord also lives there, you were a lodger.
Also, the section I quoted talks about 'a whole converted flat' - this isn't a conversion, the house was built like this. I think it was already complicated, before I came along!!

es5595

Comms69 wrote: »

Why are you complicating it??

I agree with this! You're definitely overthinking it!

trailingspouse wrote:

I thought that basically if you occupy the whole flat/house and the landlord doesn't live there, you were a tenant, but if you occupy part of a house and the landlord also lives there, you were a lodger.

Nope, thats exactly it. The rooms are not self-contained by any regular definition, and you will still have access to them whilst you have a lodger in residence (for the avoidance of doubt, put explicitly in the contract that you have access, and will vacuum them fortnightly/weekly).

Your attic rooms are not a flat. You can happily rent them out to a lodger under the rent-a-room scheme :beer:

trailingspouse

THANK YOU es5595!!
:beer:

Comms69

Basically rent the room out for £625, and advertise the amenities.


You should be fine.