OK for owner-occupier with a lodger to go abroad for 3 months?

NervyBuyer

Hi, I have done some Googling on this and I think it is OK but hoping someone can advise if I've missed something.

Owner-occupier with a lodger, owner pays all bills. Owner going abroad for 3 months (travelling, not working, no fixed address, return date booked). All owner's belongings will remain in the house, post still addressed there, obvious intent to return.

Is there any 'legal' problem with this arrangement? Would it affect house insurance in any way?

For completeness, the property is owned outright and lodger pays less than half the market rent for the whole property (i.e. would not be being asked to effectively pay a tenant's rate as the sole occupant).

Thanks!

theartfullodger

Risky .(lodger could get up to all sorts:. Change all locks, remortgage or sell property etc etc etc)

Depending on exactly how owner acts a judge might conclude owner is living elsewhere, no longer residential landlord, tenant has become an AST tenant, most paperwork neede for AST not done so f***ed 

NervyBuyer

Is 3 months really enough time for all that to happen?

theartfullodger

NervyBuyer said:

Is 3 months really enough time for all that to happen?

Depends what LL does.  Plus if he stays away longer...  There are risks - IMHO too much risk for not much return.

Nervybuyer - are you agent, landlord, tenant, solicitors, student researching question....?

NervyBuyer

Owner.

Only other option is to leave empty, which is not desirable practically nor allowed under insurance terms, so unsure what else to do. Letting out entire property is problematic because cost of renting somewhere else to live on return will be more than rental income (after tax and management fees).

silvercar

Is this a new lodger or one you already live with? 

For an existing lodger I would think it fine. The chances of the lodger wanting to commit fraud by taking out a mortgage in your name is small, and the chances of them getting away with it even smaller.

NervyBuyer

Existing lodger.

MalMonroe

I think it depends just how much you trust your lodger. If I didn't trust them I wouldn't have a moment's peace while I was away. Even if I did trust them I'd be struggling. . . 

I'd definitely not leave any valuable items at home if I were going away for three months, trust or no trust.

I'd also have ALL my post delivered to a post box at the post office - which is what I do anyway if I go away for longer than a month. Yes, you have to pay but it's cheaper than having to replace anything that may come by post and then go missing.

I'd have to ensure that I kept in touch with the lodger regularly (but vary the times), no matter if I was travelling with no fixed address - keeping in touch is very easy these days.

Also that lodger is going to have the freedom and run of the house for three months and might very well resent your return! (I know I would.)

For extra reassurance, I'd have to have a relative or friend keep an eye on my property throughout the three month period.

In summary, I'd be very reluctant to leave anyone in my home if I were going travelling for three months. I think it's risky. 

As theartfullodger says above, your lodger could change the locks. . .  but maybe we've both been watching too many scary movies?

NervyBuyer

I think I should have put in my OP that this wasn't a question about trustworthiness etc - those are intangibles that I would have to consider the risks of myself separately (not sure I would feel happy with living with someone in the first place whom I had so little trust in) - but merely a question of legality of the arrangement i.e. when might a lodger turn into a tenant, insurance implications...

MalMonroe

NervyBuyer said:

Is 3 months really enough time for all that to happen?

Changing locks doesn't take long at all . . . selling the house would obviously take much longer but the lodger could take in more lodgers in your absence? If they were so inclined - or needed to make some money. 

As for insurance, compare the market says - "generally, insurance providers consider that a lodger is an extra risk. A lodger is one extra person with a key to your home, who you might not know much about. There’s always a risk that they might be careless, cause malicious damage or steal from you."

And you might be interested in their article on it. Link here - 

https://www.comparethemarket.com/home-insurance/content/lodger-insurance/

You're supposed to tell your insurance provider if you have a lodger. I think that would be a very wise move.

I could be misjudging your lodger terribly here and if so, I do apologise but it's better to be safe than sorry. 

NervyBuyer

The insurance know about the lodger - I was wondering if the situation changed if the owner was temporarily not resident (would that possibly qualify as unoccupied, as you may not know if the lodger was actually resident?).