Tenant or lodger?

diego_94

Change the locks

G_M

As others have said, the precise legal position is unclear. In other words, the duck has not yet quacked, it is standing still so we've not seen it move yet. It might be a duck, but there again, it might turn out to be a goose...


But my best guess is that you were initially given exclusive occupation in return for rent, via a verbal tenancy agreement.

Ignore any subsequent requests, or demands, made by the landlord - these could only become relevant if you agree them, and agree to alter the original terms.

So no, you need not sign the AST agreement unless you want to. And no, you need not pay a deposit now unless you want to, and no, you need not refrain from using the living room unless you want to.

Clearly this landlord is not going to simply accept anything less than what she wants unless forced to do so, so you need to decide what you want. You could

1) write (though you seem to have no other address for the LL - or do you?) or email (text as a last resort) thanking the LL for renting you the property and advise her that you are happy with the original terms agreed orally:
* rent £X pm / pw
* deposit - not required
* exclusive ocupation under an AST


Then change the locks as it seems clear reading between the lines that the LL will be unhappy to receive this!


Note that unless the LL gives you, in writing, a postal address where you can serve notices (the property address is not appropriate!), you need not pay rent. (Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 48)



2) negotiate some other, mutually agreeable, arrangement and get it in wriing. This may be the one she is now ofering, or may be something different - up to you.


3) buckle under, sign what she offers, and do what she wants. Easier life for all!

Felics

G_M wrote: »

As others have said, the precise legal position is unclear. In other words, the duck has not yet quacked, it is standing still so we've not seen it move yet. It might be a duck, but there again, it might turn out to be a goose...


But my best guess is that you were initially given exclusive occupation in return for rent, via a verbal tenancy agreement.

Ignore any subsequent requests, or demands, made by the landlord - these could only become relevant if you agree them, and agree to alter the original terms.

So no, you need not sign the AST agreement unless you want to. And no, you need not pay a deposit now unless you want to, and no, you need not refrain from using the living room unless you want to.

Clearly this landlord is not going to simply accept anything less than what she wants unless forced to do so, so you need to decide what you want. You could

1) write (though you seem to have no other address for the LL - or do you?) or email (text as a last resort) thanking the LL for renting you the property and advise her that you are happy with the original terms agreed orally:
* rent £X pm / pw
* deposit - not required
* exclusive ocupation under an AST


Then change the locks as it seems clear reading between the lines that the LL will be unhappy to receive this!


Note that unless the LL gives you, in writing, a postal address where you can serve notices (the property address is not appropriate!), you need not pay rent. (Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 48)



2) negotiate some other, mutually agreeable, arrangement and get it in wriing. This may be the one she is now ofering, or may be something different - up to you.


3) buckle under, sign what she offers, and do what she wants. Easier life for all!

Thanks.

I spoke to Shelter who confirmed what I suspected - that it is a verbal AST.

The latest draft (sent yday) of the agreement has now changed into a "Excluded Occupier Tenancy Agreement" For letting a single room in a dwelling.

Having a quick read of the rights of an excluded occ. - they seem to be very limited.

Having a more detailed read, I don't think she can provide this to me as I THINK one of the conditions is that she must live in the property or at least that there are others sharing the property. Neither is the case here.

The plot thickens.

I had a sitdown with her yesterday to explain the situation which she is agreeable with (i.e. I will continue to use the lounge). I proposed that I won't use the other bedrooms nor the garage. So will continue to use the bedroom, lounge, kitchen and bathroom as I have been. I have also said she is free to come and go as long as I am given notice.

If I agree to the above, am I still covered as tenant under an AST? I assume it will be a room only AST

G_M

Felics wrote: »

Thanks.

I spoke to Shelter who confirmed what I suspected - that it is a verbal AST.

The latest draft (sent yday) of the agreement has now changed into a "Excluded Occupier Tenancy Agreement" For letting a single room in a dwelling.

Having a quick read of the rights of an excluded occ. - they seem to be very limited.

Having a more detailed read, I don't think she can provide this to me as I THINK one of the conditions is that she must live in the property or at least that there are others sharing the property. Neither is the case here.

The plot thickens.

I had a sitdown with her yesterday to explain the situation which she is agreeable with (i.e. I will continue to use the lounge). I proposed that I won't use the other bedrooms nor the garage. So will continue to use the bedroom, lounge, kitchen and bathroom as I have been. I have also said she is free to come and go as long as I am given notice.

If I agree to the above, am I still covered as tenant under an AST? I assume it will be a room only AST

In terms of claiming to be a tenant, with tenancy rights, and with exclusive occupation, you are now on very dodgy ground.

Quite why you have compromised to this extent, and ignored earlier advice above, I don't know.

Are you giving notice? It's unclear. If yes, how much notice has she agreed to, in writing? What about the deposit issue?
If you are planning to stay, and you've agreed to her 'coming and going' (and using the other bedroom(s)?), the duck (tenant( may turn out to be a goose (excluded occupier) if it comes to a legal determination.

Felics

I haven't agreed to anything yet.

All I mention is that she has sent through a new agreement as excluded occupier.

I haven't served notice or anything other than have a conversation about what she and I propose.

I thought the best bet would be to allow her access when she requests as it doesn't make sense not to. Not allow her to go in and out as she pleases.

I thought this would qualify under a room only Ast?

pickledonionspaceraider

I would under no circumstances sign that agreement.

I would not follow her rules, that she has imposed since moving in - and I would keep the door latch on / keys in the lock, so she could not walk in unannounced whilst you are in

She is behaving like a !!!!!

diego_94

Seems to me as she now realises she has made a mistake when verbally offering you a AST tenancy, and is now trying to back pedal.

As many have said before, change the locks.

Lungboy

Felics wrote: »

I thought the best bet would be to allow her access when she requests as it doesn't make sense not to. Not allow her to go in and out as she pleases.

Why would that be best? It makes perfect sense not to as it's your home. What purpose does she have in the house?

Felics

Lungboy wrote: »

Why would that be best? It makes perfect sense not to as it's your home. What purpose does she have in the house?

Essentially she stores a few things here and there. Thats all the access she needs.

I did have one Q though.

If I did provide her access would that make me an excluded tenant? I dont want to be as such as would prefer to be a tenant under AST due to having more rights

G_M

Look - you've been advised.

Give her access and you muddy the legal waters. You are suddenly no longer in 'exclusive occupation' of the property. You are sharing with your landlord.

Whether you have an AST for the room is vaguely possible but unlikely. (is it a duck or a goose? Only a court can decide).

Were there other occupants/'tenants', each with a room (HMO) then yes
a) you'd have an AST for the room and
b) a LL is automatically entitled to access 'common areas'.

But this is a house you are renting, not a shared HMO.

It makes NO sense to allow her access. Stop fannying around and change the locks!


(and stop making compromise proposals, each of which will imply you accept you are an excluded occupier.)