Renting my spare bedrooms out to my friends
This discussion has been closed.
Latest News and Guides
Martin Lewis: 'Avoid pressure to switch to new energy fix'
This is if your current deal is coming to an end
MSE News
Use Tesco Clubcard points to buy Cineworld vouchers?
Don't get caught out by scheme shake-up
MSE News
Replies
It's £7.5k in total for EVERYTHING they pay you
Does the person living with a person who owns the house have exclusive occupation because they have a key to the front door? Do they have exclusive occupation because they have a lock on the bathroom? Do they not have the right to keep their belongings safe during the day from other people? Does that person not have the right to lock their door and keep them safe when sleeping at night (an example would be a woman sharing with men she doesn't know and doesn't control who moves in)? Obviously you won't agree.
What is the point of a person who lives/owns the house having a lodger agreement?
Usually in order to pursue the matter through the courts if necessary...
If the door has a lock and the tenant is given a key, this will not be a tenancy if the landlord also has a key and regularly goes in from time to time, to do cleaning, empty the bins, etc.
Indeed, the two times that I've lived as a lodger in London and the NW, I could always lock my door (though I'm sure the LL had a key as well).
@comedyseeker123, how dare you assume you know my opinion on anything unless I have stated it? Of course, I think people should be able to lock their rooms to keep themselves and their belongings safe! I did not say I agreed with the law; I said that is what the law is. Given a potential LL began this thread, my reply was geared to a LL's point of view. Debating the morality of the law regarding lodgers' rights is a separate issue.
Muhandis, thank you for the clarification. Yes, if the LL also has a key to the room, it cannot be classed as "exclusive" occupation for the simple reason someone besides the occupier has a key. I omitted to mention that because, imho, to a large extent it defeats the purpose of the lodger having one.
The received wisdom is, if you allow a lodger a lock on their bedroom door, you risk their becoming a tenant with all the rights of one so, from a LL's point of view, it is preferable not to take that risk.
By their very nature, front door keys and bolts on bathroom doors do not convey "exclusive" occupation because everyone in the property will have a front door key and use of the bathroom.
That's a good point. Simply not fitting a lock in the door in the first place might be easier.
A lodger would probably expect to have a bathroom-style bolt for ther door so they can have privacy when they're present.
I'm not understanding the difference - partly because I haven't researched it and also because as a renter I've rented out rooms (overseas) and rented rooms. The only difference is the landlord can enter the room without permission. Sounds more like a parent and child relationship rather than adults?
how double dare you lol. Dude calm down, I wasn't taking a dig at you.
By their very nature, a landlord living or not living in the house can enter the room for whatever reason they wish. The person doesn't own that room.
A landlord not living in the property would have zero rights of access unless authorised by the tenant.
No, they cannot. A tenant has the right to "quiet enjoyment", exclusive occupation and at least 24 hours' notice of inspection. In theory, they cannot refuse access; in practice, they are frequently exhorted to change the locks by, amongst others, many of the LLs who post on this board.