Excluded occupier - preparing for the worst

ThisIsWeird

From what we've been told, the 'lodger' was only expected to cover their own running costs, so no rent was paid in any form whatsoever, disguised or no.

artyboy

ThisIsWeird said:

From what we've been told, the 'lodger' was only expected to cover their own running costs, so no rent was paid in any form whatsoever, disguised or no.

Agreed, and they didn't even do that! The whole place was also a right mess.

It could be that a bullet was dodged here but how certain people manage to get themselves into situations like this, time and time again, is beyond me... 

RHemmings

ThisIsWeird said:

From what we've been told, the 'lodger' was only expected to cover their own running costs, so no rent was paid in any form whatsoever, disguised or no.

I'm not convinced, if any money was paid at all. Particularly since it wasn't the occupier paying the bills directly, but money to the owner of the house who would then pay the bills. I'd want to see a court case decision on this. 

I'm thinking back to the discussion on Property Guardians, and what it says on Shelter's site. It looks 'easy' for an AST to be created. https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/legal/renting/occupiers_with_limited_security/renting_rights_of_property_guardians

EDIT: I did a search for court cases similar to the situation in this thread, and found nothing. Plenty of different cases (e.g. unsuccessful attempt to claim a properly drafted property guardianship was actually an AST).