We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Renting my spare bedrooms out to my friends
Comments
-
Ryanbell94 wrote: »Is this 7.5k for each room or both rooms?
It's £7.5k in total for EVERYTHING they pay you0 -
Surely, less annoying than granting a lodger "exclusive occupation" of a room and, therefore, the same rights as a tenant, don't you think?
Does the person living with a person who owns the house have exclusive occupation because they have a key to the front door? Do they have exclusive occupation because they have a lock on the bathroom? Do they not have the right to keep their belongings safe during the day from other people? Does that person not have the right to lock their door and keep them safe when sleeping at night (an example would be a woman sharing with men she doesn't know and doesn't control who moves in)? Obviously you won't agree.
What is the point of a person who lives/owns the house having a lodger agreement?0 -
comedyseeker123 wrote: »Does the person living with a person who owns the house have exclusive occupation because they have a key to the front door? - no? Do they have exclusive occupation because they have a lock on the bathroom? - no? Do they not have the right to keep their belongings safe during the day from other people? -no Does that person not have the right to lock their door and keep them safe when sleeping at night (an example would be a woman sharing with men she doesn't know and doesn't control who moves in)? - why would a woman sharing with men be any more at risk than anyone else? Obviously you won't agree. - Clearly not, you haven't actually come up with a sensible suggestion
What is the point of a person who lives/owns the house having a lodger agreement?
Usually in order to pursue the matter through the courts if necessary...0 -
Quite right. Having a lock on the door to a lodger's room does not automatically make it a tenancy.
If the door has a lock and the tenant is given a key, this will not be a tenancy if the landlord also has a key and regularly goes in from time to time, to do cleaning, empty the bins, etc.
Indeed, the two times that I've lived as a lodger in London and the NW, I could always lock my door (though I'm sure the LL had a key as well).comedyseeker123 wrote: »Does the person living with a person who owns the house have exclusive occupation because they have a key to the front door? Do they have exclusive occupation because they have a lock on the bathroom? Do they not have the right to keep their belongings safe during the day from other people? Does that person not have the right to lock their door and keep them safe when sleeping at night (an example would be a woman sharing with men she doesn't know and doesn't control who moves in)? Obviously you won't agree.
What is the point of a person who lives/owns the house having a lodger agreement?0 -
Quite right. Having a lock on the door to a lodger's room does not automatically make it a tenancy.
If the door has a lock and the tenant is given a key, this will not be a tenancy if the landlord also has a key and regularly goes in from time to time, to do cleaning, empty the bins, etc.
Indeed, the two times that I've lived as a lodger in London and the NW, I could always lock my door (though I'm sure the LL had a key as well).
@comedyseeker123, how dare you assume you know my opinion on anything unless I have stated it? Of course, I think people should be able to lock their rooms to keep themselves and their belongings safe! I did not say I agreed with the law; I said that is what the law is. Given a potential LL began this thread, my reply was geared to a LL's point of view. Debating the morality of the law regarding lodgers' rights is a separate issue.
Muhandis, thank you for the clarification. Yes, if the LL also has a key to the room, it cannot be classed as "exclusive" occupation for the simple reason someone besides the occupier has a key. I omitted to mention that because, imho, to a large extent it defeats the purpose of the lodger having one.
The received wisdom is, if you allow a lodger a lock on their bedroom door, you risk their becoming a tenant with all the rights of one so, from a LL's point of view, it is preferable not to take that risk.
By their very nature, front door keys and bolts on bathroom doors do not convey "exclusive" occupation because everyone in the property will have a front door key and use of the bathroom.0 -
Quite right. Having a lock on the door to a lodger's room does not automatically make it a tenancy.
If the door has a lock and the tenant is given a key, this will not be a tenancy if the landlord also has a key and regularly goes in from time to time, to do cleaning, empty the bins, etc.
Indeed, the two times that I've lived as a lodger in London and the NW, I could always lock my door (though I'm sure the LL had a key as well).
That's a good point. Simply not fitting a lock in the door in the first place might be easier.
A lodger would probably expect to have a bathroom-style bolt for ther door so they can have privacy when they're present.There is no honour to be had in not knowing a thing that can be known - Danny Baker0 -
Usually in order to pursue the matter through the courts if necessary...
I'm not understanding the difference - partly because I haven't researched it and also because as a renter I've rented out rooms (overseas) and rented rooms. The only difference is the landlord can enter the room without permission. Sounds more like a parent and child relationship rather than adults?0 -
@comedyseeker123, how dare you assume you know my opinion on anything unless I have stated it? Of course, I think people should be able to lock their rooms to keep themselves and their belongings safe! I did not say I agreed with the law; I said that is what the law is. Given a potential LL began this thread, my reply was geared to a LL's point of view. Debating the morality of the law regarding lodgers' rights is a separate issue.
Muhandis, thank you for the clarification. Yes, if the LL also has a key to the room, it cannot be classed as "exclusive" occupation for the simple reason someone besides the occupier has a key. I omitted to mention that because, imho, to a large extent it defeats the purpose of the lodger having one.
The received wisdom is, if you allow a lodger a lock on their bedroom door, you risk their becoming a tenant with all the rights of one so, from a LL's point of view, it is preferable not to take that risk.
By their very nature, front door keys and bolts on bathroom doors do not convey "exclusive" occupation because everyone in the property will have a front door key and use of the bathroom.
how double dare you lol. Dude calm down, I wasn't taking a dig at you.
By their very nature, a landlord living or not living in the house can enter the room for whatever reason they wish. The person doesn't own that room.0 -
comedyseeker123 wrote: »how double dare you lol. Dude calm down, I wasn't taking a dig at you.
By their very nature, a landlord living or not living in the house can enter the room for whatever reason they wish. The person doesn't own that room.
A landlord not living in the property would have zero rights of access unless authorised by the tenant.0 -
comedyseeker123 wrote: »how double dare you lol. Dude calm down, I wasn't taking a dig at you.
... Still not a dude and don't tell me what to do, you little upstart... LOL; that forgives everything to the text generation, right?
By their very nature, a landlord living or not living in the house can enter the room for whatever reason they wish. The person doesn't own that room.
No, they cannot. A tenant has the right to "quiet enjoyment", exclusive occupation and at least 24 hours' notice of inspection. In theory, they cannot refuse access; in practice, they are frequently exhorted to change the locks by, amongst others, many of the LLs who post on this board.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards