Am I a tenant or lodger?

_Penny_Dreadful

elsien said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

Pumpk1N888 said:

I was on an AST then rolling contract for years then suddenly, my landlord decided that I am a lodger after all so need advice about how to go forward.

The studio flat I live in is self-contained with no shared areas whatsoever with my landlord. Even though we live in the same building, our flats have separate entrances as well.

Is there any way I can challenge this?

If you’re in England it’s possible that you’re an occupier with basic protection. 

Are your studio and your landlord’s flat purpose built flats or flats in a converted house? If it’s the former you’re a tenant with an AST and if it’s the latter you’re an occupier with basic protection. 

I’m not sure I follow the logic in that last paragraph. If it’s a  flat with separate entrance and no shared facilities, in what way is the OP an occupier rather than a tenant? I lived in a flat in a converted house and I was definitely a tenant.

I understand that the OP lives in a studio flat and doesn’t share facilities with their landlord. The crux of the matter is that the landlord also occupies a flat in the converted house making them a resident landlord under paragraph 10 schedule 1 of the Housing Act 1988. As there are no shared facilities the OP would be an occupier with basic protections rather than excluded occupier.  

If you lived in a flat in converted house and your landlord occupied another flat in the converted house as their main residence then it’s likely you were an occupier with basic protections rather too. 

Pumpk1N888

Baldytyke88 said:

Pumpk1N888 said:

Thanks for this. He issued me a Section 21 notice then said, when I was due to leave, that he would offer me a new contract, the lodger agreement! My rent is all inclusive.

He may have ended your tenancy, but he would need a court order to force you to leave. Just going by what I have seen on TV

What are his motives, is he wanting you to pay more?

I have been here for a while, I think he is worried about this. But also the more I talk to people about this issue, the dodgier he seems. 

Pumpk1N888

_Penny_Dreadful said:

elsien said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

Pumpk1N888 said:

I was on an AST then rolling contract for years then suddenly, my landlord decided that I am a lodger after all so need advice about how to go forward.

The studio flat I live in is self-contained with no shared areas whatsoever with my landlord. Even though we live in the same building, our flats have separate entrances as well.

Is there any way I can challenge this?

If you’re in England it’s possible that you’re an occupier with basic protection. 

Are your studio and your landlord’s flat purpose built flats or flats in a converted house? If it’s the former you’re a tenant with an AST and if it’s the latter you’re an occupier with basic protection. 

I’m not sure I follow the logic in that last paragraph. If it’s a  flat with separate entrance and no shared facilities, in what way is the OP an occupier rather than a tenant? I lived in a flat in a converted house and I was definitely a tenant.

I understand that the OP lives in a studio flat and doesn’t share facilities with their landlord. The crux of the matter is that the landlord also occupies a flat in the converted house making them a resident landlord under paragraph 10 schedule 1 of the Housing Act 1988. As there are no shared facilities the OP would be an occupier with basic protections rather than excluded occupier.  

If you lived in a flat in converted house and your landlord occupied another flat in the converted house as their main residence then it’s likely you were an occupier with basic protections rather too. 

So any converted property where the landlord also lives makes someone basic occupier? Even if he does not own the rest of the building?

_Penny_Dreadful

Pumpk1N888 said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

elsien said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

Pumpk1N888 said:

I was on an AST then rolling contract for years then suddenly, my landlord decided that I am a lodger after all so need advice about how to go forward.

The studio flat I live in is self-contained with no shared areas whatsoever with my landlord. Even though we live in the same building, our flats have separate entrances as well.

Is there any way I can challenge this?

If you’re in England it’s possible that you’re an occupier with basic protection. 

Are your studio and your landlord’s flat purpose built flats or flats in a converted house? If it’s the former you’re a tenant with an AST and if it’s the latter you’re an occupier with basic protection. 

I’m not sure I follow the logic in that last paragraph. If it’s a  flat with separate entrance and no shared facilities, in what way is the OP an occupier rather than a tenant? I lived in a flat in a converted house and I was definitely a tenant.

I understand that the OP lives in a studio flat and doesn’t share facilities with their landlord. The crux of the matter is that the landlord also occupies a flat in the converted house making them a resident landlord under paragraph 10 schedule 1 of the Housing Act 1988. As there are no shared facilities the OP would be an occupier with basic protections rather than excluded occupier.  

If you lived in a flat in converted house and your landlord occupied another flat in the converted house as their main residence then it’s likely you were an occupier with basic protections rather too. 

So any converted property where the landlord also lives makes someone basic occupier? Even if he does not own the rest of the building?

Pumpk1N888 said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

elsien said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

Pumpk1N888 said:

I was on an AST then rolling contract for years then suddenly, my landlord decided that I am a lodger after all so need advice about how to go forward.

The studio flat I live in is self-contained with no shared areas whatsoever with my landlord. Even though we live in the same building, our flats have separate entrances as well.

Is there any way I can challenge this?

If you’re in England it’s possible that you’re an occupier with basic protection. 

Are your studio and your landlord’s flat purpose built flats or flats in a converted house? If it’s the former you’re a tenant with an AST and if it’s the latter you’re an occupier with basic protection. 

I’m not sure I follow the logic in that last paragraph. If it’s a  flat with separate entrance and no shared facilities, in what way is the OP an occupier rather than a tenant? I lived in a flat in a converted house and I was definitely a tenant.

I understand that the OP lives in a studio flat and doesn’t share facilities with their landlord. The crux of the matter is that the landlord also occupies a flat in the converted house making them a resident landlord under paragraph 10 schedule 1 of the Housing Act 1988. As there are no shared facilities the OP would be an occupier with basic protections rather than excluded occupier.  

If you lived in a flat in converted house and your landlord occupied another flat in the converted house as their main residence then it’s likely you were an occupier with basic protections rather too. 

So any converted property where the landlord also lives makes someone basic occupier? Even if he does not own the rest of the building?

The legislation makes the distinction between purpose built flats and converted dwelling houses. 

How do you know your landlord doesn’t own the rest of the building. He could be the freeholder or own a share of a freeholder, not that the Housing Act 1988 says anything about him having to be the freeholder. 

Pumpk1N888

Thanks @_Penny_Dreadful for clarifying. He does own a share of freehold.

FlorayG

I'm not sure about your status as an 'occupier' but you 100% are NOT a lodger because one of the definitions of a lodger is that they share facilities (e.g. bathroom or kitchen) with the LL. Clearly you do not. Your LL is trying it on and cannot make you a lodger. Possibly he's trying to take advantage of the 'rent a room' scheme on which a LL does not pay tax whereas renting out to a tenant incurs tax. So your new 'contract' is sham and unenforcable

PRAISETHESUN

Baldytyke88 said:

Pumpk1N888 said:

Thanks for this. He issued me a Section 21 notice then said, when I was due to leave, that he would offer me a new contract, the lodger agreement! My rent is all inclusive.

He may have ended your tenancy, but he would need a court order to force you to leave. Just going by what I have seen on TV

What are his motives, is he wanting you to pay more?

To be pedantic about this, the LL has not ended the tenancy. Only the tenant (ie. the OP) or a court can do this. The S21 notice is simply just a piece of paper that says the LL intends to start legal proceedings to end the tenancy through the courts.

If OP has given their own counter notice that they intend to leave the property then that changes things, but otherwise it continues on the same terms as the original AST. The LL can't change this. Definitely sounds like they are trying it on.

Pumpk1N888

Thanks @FlorayG ... do you happen to know what my rights would be if he has misled me and the council or dodged tax? Based on what people are saying. I am wondering if my studio was an illegal conversion.

saajan_12

Voyager2002 said:

Pumpk1N888 said:

Thanks @Myci85 @Bookworm225 @_Penny_Dreadfuland @elsien

It is a converted house with 2 other flats (not landlord's). I do not have any shared facilities with them and have my own entrance and a lock on my door. I did sign the agreement as I was under a lot of stress and had not found somewhere else. I did seek legal advice (from university) then and was told to sign it and then contest it later. I however felt that the advisers were dismissive of me because that is not the type of case they deal with.

Whether or not they were dismissive of you, the advice they gave was good.

If it ever becomes an issue in the future, a court would very easily determine that you are still a tenant with all the rights that an AST conveys, with the piece of paper that you signed being dismissed as a "sham contract".

No, pretty poor advice actually. While the paper likely doesn't actually change OP from a tenant to a lodger, that doesn't make it a good idea to intentionally muddy the waters and let the LL *think* they can just throw the OP out. If they do, that's going to be much more stressful than a S21 notice. 

Bookworm225

Pumpk1N888 said:

Thanks @FlorayG ... do you happen to know what my rights would be if he has misled me and the council or dodged tax? Based on what people are saying. I am wondering if my studio was an illegal conversion.

your rights are it remains your tenancy until you, or a court, end it.

his tax affairs are irrelevant to your housing situation and best ignored unless you have hard evidence that you can submit to HMRC as a fraud report. If you can't then what do you think you can do? It just adds to your war with the LL but will achieve nothing.

define "illegal" conversion?
Look at your council's planning portal, if the property had planning permission for conversion to self contained flats that will be on there (unless it was done a VERY long time ago eg: pre 1960s). If was built as self contained flats from the outset it won't.