First time buyer council property

warby68

I think a single person with a lodger is still just one 'unit'.

The rights of a lodger are very modest compared to a tenant - I think they were often called 'paying guests' so just an extension of the householder.

I'm happy to be corrected by those with more expertise on that but I'd be surprised if this caused any issues. You could also easily be two friends buying together to get on the property ladder to the outside world, as long as you don't draw undue attention to yourselves.

The intention of the clause is to avoid HMO or overcrowding situations not to be prescriptive about what constitutes a single unit - again happy to be corrected but that seems logical.

What does your solicitor say about the risk?

00ec25

warby68 wrote: »

I think a single person with a lodger is still just one 'unit'.

The rights of a lodger are very modest compared to a tenant - I think they were often called 'paying guests' so just an extension of the householder.

I'm happy to be corrected by those with more expertise on that but I'd be surprised if this caused any issues. You could also easily be two friends buying together to get on the property ladder to the outside world, as long as you don't draw undue attention to yourselves.

The intention of the clause is to avoid HMO or overcrowding situations not to be prescriptive about what constitutes a single unit - again happy to be corrected but that seems logical.

What does your solicitor say about the risk?

you are indeed wrong in thinking 2 unrelated people living in separate bedrooms is a "unit". It isn't, it is 2 separate households sharing the same premises which has council tax implications (the landlord, not their lodger is legally liable to pay all the CT) but with only 2 households it is, as you say, not an HMO for housing purposes.

as for the risk, I agree with you, probably low chance of ever coming to a head over having a lodger living there.

Davesnave

matt8282 wrote: »

Has anyone stumbled upon this clause and what are your views?

I haven't come across that restriction, but I've had others at different levels of importance attached to property and my current home has quite a severe one, where non-compliance could mean eviction.


I don't agree with it, so I've not complied. That's the sort of person I am. It sounds like you might not be like me, and it's that which gives you a problem.

matt8282

So I contacted the Freeholder on the matter and they came back with the following;

If you are living in the property and wish to take in a lodger in one room then the lease allows for that. The lease does not allow for it to become a house of multiple occupation or to be used for commercial purposes.

Just waiting for the solicitor to confirm this, however it looks like the panic is over for now! Until I stumble upon another clause. Thanks for all your help and advice.

warby68

00ec25 wrote: »

you are indeed wrong in thinking 2 unrelated people living in separate bedrooms is a "unit". It isn't, it is 2 separate households sharing the same premises which has council tax implications (the landlord, not their lodger is legally liable to pay all the CT) but with only 2 households it is, as you say, not an HMO for housing purposes.

as for the risk, I agree with you, probably low chance of ever coming to a head over having a lodger living there.

A unit for the purposes of the lease clause was what I meant, given the relative power (or lack of it) of a lodger compared to other forms of occupation. Similar to mortgages which allow a lodger but not other rental generating schemes.

Looks like a lodger is ok anyway - seems like a practical interpretation all round.

warby68

Davesnave wrote: »

I haven't come across that restriction, but I've had others at different levels of importance attached to property and my current home has quite a severe one, where non-compliance could mean eviction.


I don't agree with it, so I've not complied. That's the sort of person I am. It sounds like you might not be like me, and it's that which gives you a problem.

I might have a tiny bit of that in me, not as much as you Dave, but a tiny bit

Its usually about the purpose of the clause rather than its actual wording, when weighing it up.

Davesnave

warby68 wrote: »

I might have a tiny bit of that in me, not as much as you Dave, but a tiny bit

Its usually about the purpose of the clause rather than its actual wording, when weighing it up.

Exactly. The purpose of the restriction on our house has been superseded by 'progress' and economic changes.

We were 'brave' because we were sure austerity would mean the council would have no interest in enforcement. While we live within the spirit of the restriction, but have not complied with it.

Anyway, it's all academic now, as we've been here over 10 years, so we could apply for a CLEUD.

VALM

matt8282 wrote: »

When I highlighted to the Estate Agency my intentions to rent out the spare room I would have thought they would highlight the potential clause may be in effect based on their expertise in selling properties in the area. If I knew of the clause before starting the process I would have not put an offer in for the property.

You give the Estate Agent too much credit for being that knowledgeable or caring about anything other than making the sale.


Has your Solicitor replied?

Brock_and_Roll

Lodger or Lover....who is to know peoples relationships!

Frankly unless as other posted have said, the lodgers causes problems (in which case presumably you would boot him or her out), then I doubt any other people would be bothered.

matt8282

I recieved a reply from the solicitors and they have quoted

"The position here is that if you are purchasing the property with a view to sub-letting in effect to a lodger then that will put you in breach of the terms of the lease. We cannot advise you to proceed in breach but you may consider some aspects of the practicalities of the matter such as whether the landlord is likely to care, find out, or enforce the position. That is a risk however as if they do care, do find out and do enforce the position there is little doubt in our view that you would be in breach of that covenant."

Given that I have already contacted the freeholder and they have said its fine to have a lodger as I am living in the property also. The covent is designed to prevent it to become a house of multiple occupation or to be used for commercial purposes.

Many leasehold terms comes with the covent. As the freeholder has given me the information I have submitted it to the solicitors. It comes as across that in my situation the covent is meaningless.