HMO / lodger question

James_Green_1982

zagubov wrote: »

It would be very public-spirited of your relative to bring the multiple occupancy of the house to the council's attention.

Unfortunately, as a lodger, if the council decided the house was over-occupied and somebody needs to move out, your well-meaning relative wouldn't have much option but to leave if he had the misfortune to be the one chosen to find somewhere else.

He needs to make sure there's no chance of that happening before he does his civic duty. It's very brave to saw off the treebranch he's sitting on.

Thanks.
Yes, that's pretty much sums up his consideration -ie how strong his position is.
If he goes ahead and reports the LL, then he's got no bargaining position left to play.

Honeylife

James_Green_1982 wrote: »

One of my relatives rents a room in a 4 bedroom house. The house is a 'standard' two floor house (ie ground floor and first floor). One bedroom is downstairs, 3 bedrooms upstairs (first floor). No loft conversion or cellar etc.

The landlord (house owner) has one bedroom. The other 3 bedrooms are let out to single occupants. So there are 4 people living there, including the landlord. They all share bathroom and kitchen. No en-suite bathrooms. But they do have locks on their bedroom doors. ie locks that can be locked when they are out (not just lockable when inside the room).

My relative says that he is a lodger. He paid one month's rent as a deposit - not put into any protected scheme - just a hand written receipt from the landlord.

I told my relative that I think this house is an HMO. But we weren't sure if he could be a lodger in an HMO - or are all HMO residents (apart from the LL) actually tenants?

It sounds like an HMO but don't know the specific LAs rules. Many LA changed the rules so that 3+ rooms must be licenced with the LA. Because of the appalling overcrowding that was taking place with families of being put into bog standard rooms in regular houses and creating unsuitable conditions.

It would be useful to know the Local Authority this relates to.

He is definitely a lodger if sharing the property & facilities with the Resident Landlord. The property is certainly not over-occupied - there are enough bedrooms for each one occupant, (unless there was a family of five in each room, which was the original reason that the restrictions came into place), - but if it is not Licenced (if that is the LA rules) thats a different issue.

The basic fire & gas regulations would be regardless of numbers of Lodgers and should be complied with as a Duty Of Care as a Landlord.

And why why are people still taking places in 2019 without getting a proper signed Licence Agreement? Verbal Agreements come down to he said/she said and cause serious headaches in possible disputes. :doh:

silvercar

James_Green_1982 wrote: »

Thanks.
Yes, that's pretty much sums up his consideration -ie how strong his position is.
If he goes ahead and reports the LL, then he's got no bargaining position left to play.

Bargaining position for what? What is he trying to achieve?

Comms69

James_Green_1982 wrote: »

One of my relatives rents a room in a 4 bedroom house. The house is a 'standard' two floor house (ie ground floor and first floor). One bedroom is downstairs, 3 bedrooms upstairs (first floor). No loft conversion or cellar etc.

The landlord (house owner) has one bedroom. The other 3 bedrooms are let out to single occupants. So there are 4 people living there, including the landlord. They all share bathroom and kitchen. No en-suite bathrooms. But they do have locks on their bedroom doors. ie locks that can be locked when they are out (not just lockable when inside the room).

My relative says that he is a lodger. He paid one month's rent as a deposit - not put into any protected scheme - just a hand written receipt from the landlord.

I told my relative that I think this house is an HMO. But we weren't sure if he could be a lodger in an HMO - or are all HMO residents (apart from the LL) actually tenants?

A HMO does not define whether he is a tenant or a lodger; and locks on the door can be indicative, but are not definitively relevant either

James_Green_1982

silvercar wrote: »

Bargaining position for what? What is he trying to achieve?

The situation is this:

Relative moved in on 1st may 2018. Rent was £400 pcm (all bills included). The day before moving in he paid £800 cash to the LL. He got a written receipt - for ''first and last months' rent''.

So relative concluded he has paid rent for May - plus another £400.
On 1st June he paid LL another £400 cash - this is to pay for the month of June.
So he always pays his month's rent at the start of the month and the LL retains £400 as a deposit.

He plans to move out soon. But he's not keen on moving out before he's had all his money - ie he doesn't want to have to chase the LL for £400.

So relative plans to tell the LL on the day rent is due that he's not paying. For example, on 1st Sept. He would then stay in the house for all of Sept. So at the end of Sept he would owe £400 for Sept. But LL would still have the additional £400 taken at the start. So that would make them quits.

The issue is we aren't sure how this would go down with the LL. The first receipt says ''first and last months' rent''. So to me that doesn't sound like a deposit and it sounds like my relative's plan should be ok - because on the day he leaves the house he has paid for all the months he has lived there.

But one of the other lodgers has told my relative that's not how the LL wants to do it. He would want £400 at the start of Sept if relative is due to leave at end of Sept. LL would then pay my relative the £400 after he has moved out. But that shifts all the risk to the lodger.

G_M

James_Green_1982 wrote: »

The situation is this:

Relative moved in on 1st may 2018. Rent was £400 pcm (all bills included). The day before moving in he paid £800 cash to the LL. He got a written receipt - for ''first and last months' rent''.

So relative concluded he has paid rent for May - plus another £400.
On 1st June he paid LL another £400 cash - this is to pay for the month of June.
So he always pays his month's rent at the start of the month and the LL retains £400 as a deposit.
No. The landlord retains £400 for the final months rent.You said yourself: "for ''first and last months' rent''.

He plans to move out soon. But he's not keen on moving out before he's had all his money - ie he doesn't want to have to chase the LL for £400.
Since he has already paid the finalmonths rent, he will not need to pay it in his last month.

So relative plans to tell the LL on the day rent is due that he's not paying. For example, on 1st Sept. He would then stay in the house for all of Sept. So at the end of Sept he would owe £400 for Sept. But LL would still have the additional £400 taken at the start. So that would make them quits.
Yes. If he plans to leave at end of Sept (and assuming he serves proper notice), then he would not need to pay rent at start of Sept .

The issue is we aren't sure how this would go down with the LL.
Why? LL already has rent for the final month. What is the poblem?

The first receipt says ''first and last months' rent''. So to me that doesn't sound like a deposit and it sounds like my relative's plan should be ok - because on the day he leaves the house he has paid for all the months he has lived there.Yes.

But one of the other lodgers has told my relative that's not how the LL wants to do it. ignore the other lodger

He would want £400 at the start of Sept if relative is due to leave at end of Sept. LL would then pay my relative the £400 after he has moved out. But that shifts all the risk to the lodger.

That would make the £400 a deposit, not rent.

Honeylife

James_Green_1982 wrote: »

The situation is this:

Relative moved in on 1st may 2018. Rent was £400 pcm (all bills included). The day before moving in he paid £800 cash to the LL. He got a written receipt - for ''first and last months' rent''.

So relative concluded he has paid rent for May - plus another £400.
On 1st June he paid LL another £400 cash - this is to pay for the month of June.
So he always pays his month's rent at the start of the month and the LL retains £400 as a deposit.

He plans to move out soon. But he's not keen on moving out before he's had all his money - ie he doesn't want to have to chase the LL for £400.

So relative plans to tell the LL on the day rent is due that he's not paying. For example, on 1st Sept. He would then stay in the house for all of Sept. So at the end of Sept he would owe £400 for Sept. But LL would still have the additional £400 taken at the start. So that would make them quits.

The issue is we aren't sure how this would go down with the LL. The first receipt says ''first and last months' rent''. So to me that doesn't sound like a deposit and it sounds like my relative's plan should be ok - because on the day he leaves the house he has paid for all the months he has lived there.

But one of the other lodgers has told my relative that's not how the LL wants to do it. He would want £400 at the start of Sept if relative is due to leave at end of Sept. LL would then pay my relative the £400 after he has moved out. But that shifts all the risk to the lodger.

Umm, This is really very simple. Just TALK to the Landlord with whom the arrangement has been made and NOT "one of the other Lodgers"

Landlords all want to know when a Lodger is planning to vacate so they can start interviewing the replacement/refreshing room/go on holiday/whatever. In the conversation, you can confirm what was precisely meant by the receipt 'the last month's rent'. Is that final month already paid or if it needs to be paid with a refund of a 'Deposit'?

As the Landlord has written "first and last months rent", I really can't see what the query is. All you have been doing is speculating and second-guessing on possibilities and probabilities when all you have to do is clarify clearly with the person who wrote the receipt - the Landlord.

Please make sure in future your relative gets a proper Licence Agreement that has a Break Clause and states clearly whether money exchange is for a refundable Deposit, or 'Last months rent'

James_Green_1982

Honeylife wrote: »

Umm, This is really very simple. Just TALK to the Landlord with whom the arrangement has been made and NOT "one of the other Lodgers"

Landlords all want to know when a Lodger is planning to vacate so they can start interviewing the replacement/refreshing room/go on holiday/whatever. In the conversation, you can confirm what was precisely meant by the receipt 'the last month's rent'. Is that final month already paid or if it needs to be paid with a refund of a 'Deposit'?

As the Landlord has written "first and last months rent", I really can't see what the query is. All you have been doing is speculating and second-guessing on possibilities and probabilities when all you have to do is clarify clearly with the person who wrote the receipt - the Landlord.

Please make sure in future your relative gets a proper Licence Agreement that has a Break Clause and states clearly whether money exchange is for a refundable Deposit, or 'Last months rent'

I take your point, but I advised my relative to find out how strong his position is before entering into conversation with his LL.

Honeylife

James_Green_1982 wrote: »

I take your point, but I advised my relative to find out how strong his position is before entering into conversation with his LL.

1. It is the last months' rent. Nothing more to pay. Give one months notice then leave

2. It is NOT the last months' rent. Give one month notice, pay rent as normal. Leave, wait (hope) for the refund of Deposit

3. Yes, there is a 3. Just Ignore the Other Lodger!

:wall: