Lodger would like to move out before fixed term

greatcrested

Contracts are legally enforceable under contract law unless they are in some way contradicted by statute.

I'll happily stand corrected if someone can point to anything in the wording of the contract that would be overruled by statute. And if so, which statute.

If this is a tenancy, it would be a 6 month fixed term AST, bound by the Housing Act 1988.

If a (lodger) licence, there is very little statute law governing these.

brownbearl

greatcrested said:

Contracts are legally enforceable under contract law unless they are in some way contradicted by statute.

I'll happily stand corrected if someone can point to anything in the wording of the contract that would be overruled by statute. And if so, which statute.

If this is a tenancy, it would be a 6 month fixed term AST, bound by the Housing Act 1988.

If a (lodger) licence, there is very little statute law governing these.

I think determining if it is an AST or a lodger agreement has become complicated because the landlord moved in. When I signed it I was doubtful it was in fact an actual binding tenancy agreement but I wasn't so bothered since it was only a 6 month temporary flatshare. 

brownbearl

Voyager2002 said:

I think that you should contact Shelter for authoritative advice.
So long as you are happy to lose your deposit and have not damaged the property, the landlord is unlikely to be able to take any further action, nor wish to do so.

However, if you felt able to live with a random flat-sharer then if you could feel equally comfortable with the landlord then that would save a great deal of trouble.

You make a fair point, I am 3 months into the 6 months after-all, I could suck it up. I guess In my mind a flatshare would have been better as we were on an equal footing, both non owners of the flat. But now the landlord has moved in and has behaved quite unreasonably and I don't feel comfortable in the shared spaces anymore. I am just looking at what my options are really, but I will contact Shelter, thanks.

greatcrested

brownbearl said:

greatcrested said:

Contracts are legally enforceable under contract law unless they are in some way contradicted by statute.

I'll happily stand corrected if someone can point to anything in the wording of the contract that would be overruled by statute. And if so, which statute.

If this is a tenancy, it would be a 6 month fixed term AST, bound by the Housing Act 1988.

If a (lodger) licence, there is very little statute law governing these.

I think determining if it is an AST or a lodger agreement has become complicated because the landlord moved in. When I signed it I was doubtful it was in fact an actual binding tenancy agreement but I wasn't so bothered since it was only a 6 month temporary flatshare. 

Indeed. But whichever it is, there is a binding 6 month contract.

If it is a tenancy, you would have all the protection (from eviction, deposit protection etc) afforded by the Housing Act(s), but would still be bound by the 6 month fixed term tenancy.

If you are (or were) a lodger, you'd not have the Housing Act protection but the contract terms wold still bind you.

So whilst I agree there is ambiguity regarding your status, it doesn't alter the fixed term nature of your contract.

[Deleted User]

brownbearl said:

greatcrested said:

Contracts are legally enforceable under contract law unless they are in some way contradicted by statute.

I'll happily stand corrected if someone can point to anything in the wording of the contract that would be overruled by statute. And if so, which statute.

If this is a tenancy, it would be a 6 month fixed term AST, bound by the Housing Act 1988.

If a (lodger) licence, there is very little statute law governing these.

I think determining if it is an AST or a lodger agreement has become complicated because the landlord moved in. When I signed it I was doubtful it was in fact an actual binding tenancy agreement but I wasn't so bothered since it was only a 6 month temporary flatshare. 

You have a 6 month fixed term tenancy agreement to rent a room in a HMO. You don’t suddenly become a lodger because your landlord suddenly decides to occupy another bedroom within the HMO. 

brownbearl

greatcrested said:

brownbearl said:

greatcrested said:

Contracts are legally enforceable under contract law unless they are in some way contradicted by statute.

I'll happily stand corrected if someone can point to anything in the wording of the contract that would be overruled by statute. And if so, which statute.

If this is a tenancy, it would be a 6 month fixed term AST, bound by the Housing Act 1988.

If a (lodger) licence, there is very little statute law governing these.

I think determining if it is an AST or a lodger agreement has become complicated because the landlord moved in. When I signed it I was doubtful it was in fact an actual binding tenancy agreement but I wasn't so bothered since it was only a 6 month temporary flatshare. 

Indeed. But whichever it is, there is a binding 6 month contract.

If it is a tenancy, you would have all the protection (from eviction, deposit protection etc) afforded by the Housing Act(s), but would still be bound by the 6 month fixed term tenancy.

If you are (or were) a lodger, you'd not have the Housing Act protection but the contract terms wold still bind you.

So whilst I agree there is ambiguity regarding your status, it does alter the fixed term nature of your contract.

Fair enough

gozaimasu

What if you just disappeared? How would they find you? How can they take you to court if they don't have your future address?

NinjaTune

If you're a tenant then surely your Landlord should have put your deposit in a protected scheme?

brownbearl

NinjaTune said:

If you're a tenant then surely your Landlord should have put your deposit in a protected scheme?

Yes I'm not a tenant even though the document is worded as if I am one, I may have confused matters talking about that. My question was only whether the agreement I signed was enforceable.

theoretica

If the landlord wasn't living there initially should he not have put the deposit into a protected scheme?