Help! Evicting a nightmare lodger!

teachfast

Type_45 said:

sgun said:

Another thing to throw into the mix here is insurance. It is unlikely that the insurance company would accept staying over once a week would be enough for it to be a main residence and as such it should be insured under a landlord policy. This may already have been done but if not it is definitely something to look at as I can guarantee an insurance company would investigate any claims involving a house with lodgers or tenants.

The insurance company know there are 4 lodgers. They were told this even when there used to be 2 or 3 lodgers just to be on the safe side. 


Regarding the landlord not spending enough time at the property, that question isn't asked on the application. And who knows what people's movements will be during the year. There is also the issue of the landlord having been a Covid bubble with his partner for the past year.

I appreciated that there could be an argument by the lodger and her solicitor around the amount of time the landlord spends at the house. But she's only been living there 3 weeks. But I guess her solicitor could simply make a point of that anyway.

The insurance argument is about main residence, not lodgers. 

Billy_B_North

Type_45 said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

Type_45 said:

tasticz said:

sounds like a HMO also to me and the keeping 1 room and staying once a week and checking in every day is like a thin line to between main residence and HMO... sounds though its going to be messy

It's the landlords main residence. Their vote is registered at that address, they pay all the bills. Covid meant that they bubbled with their partner.

It doesn't matter what paperwork someone keeps at that address to try and make it look as though they live there,  what matters is if they actually live there or not, and it sounds like he doesn't.

Being in a support bubble doesn't mean moving in with that person.  I'm in a support bubble with my mum, thank god it doesn't for both our sakes! 

I hear what you're saying. But where is the line drawn then? How many nights a week does a landlord have to live there for it to be his "main residence"?

And how does anyone know (including the lodgers!) how many nights the landlord is in his bedroom? 

The lodgers may say "well, he never cooks in the kitchen or watches the TV in the living room"... But what does that prove?

How does the lodger prove the landlord doesn't live there if the landlord says he does? 

It’s not a court of law, so no-one needs to prove he lives elsewhere, the council gets to decide.

getmore4less

Was the office converted to a rental room as they are now WFH elsewhere?

Type_45

theoretica said:

There is also something to consider about more than one lodger and capital gains tax when the property is eventually sold.

I've worked this out for the landlord in question and it's less than £500. And he could probably get out of that.

Type_45

Hasbeen said:

Just glanced through thread, so sorry for my assumptions.

But it Looks like Err?  "slum landlord"  who has a property that is basically a HMO? 

Still has council tax in his name as sole occupier? Discounts etc

Who has now encountered a problem with an eastern european ? Perhaps starting with the R designation? Sorry ! LOL

Sorry if that is the case? then no advice.

Good luck with the eviction of " Tenant"

Is there a separate council tax band for people with lodgers/tenants?

I'm only aware of the usual rate, and the single person discount rate. 

Type_45

***** UPDATE *****
The problem lodger was due to see her solicitor today. She was out of the house for a part of the day, so we assume that's what she did.  She has now said that she's moving out this week, and that she won't cause any problems and was back to being polite and contrite.
I am guessing the solicitor looked at the Lodger Agreement and decided that she was a lodger? Or maybe that it wasn't worth fighting about?
This is a huge relief for the landlord, and massive lessons learned.

Type_45

Someone asked this earlier, but I don't think anyone answered:

If a tenancy has been created by a landlord spending large amounts of time away from the property, can the tenancy be reversed back to a lodger situation if the landlord suddenly spends more time at the property?

theoretica

Type_45 said:

Someone asked this earlier, but I don't think anyone answered:

If a tenancy has been created by a landlord spending large amounts of time away from the property, can the tenancy be reversed back to a lodger situation if the landlord suddenly spends more time at the property?

Came up in another thread on here a while back and I believe the answer was no, it couldn't be reversed.  Think in that case the landlord had gone abroad for more than a holiday.

Type_45

theoretica said:

Type_45 said:

Someone asked this earlier, but I don't think anyone answered:

If a tenancy has been created by a landlord spending large amounts of time away from the property, can the tenancy be reversed back to a lodger situation if the landlord suddenly spends more time at the property?

Came up in another thread on here a while back and I believe the answer was no, it couldn't be reversed.  Think in that case the landlord had gone abroad for more than a holiday.

That's a bit different to the landlord in question on this thread, who is at the property everyday without fail to empty bins, sweep up, and generally manage the house, as well as sleep there 1 or 2 nights a week.

deannagone

I strongly feel that in dealing with the tenant, don't make the situation worse than it is.  She is co-operating right now, and obviously is vulnerable even if behaviour can be difficult to manage at times.  Rather than treating her as some sort of 'horror tenant' just operate in the view that this arrangement wasn't a good fit for either the LL nor the tenant.   As I am sure is realised, there were things on both sides that led to this.