Can absentee L become resident L (para. 10 in Sched. 1)?

[johnboy]

Question?
If you rented rooms out in a houses to separate tenants on separate ast's and a room became vacate and the landlord moved in would the tenants then become lodgers with lodgers rights (very little) and you could evict without going down the s21 and/or s8 route which you couldn't before?

[Lawcruncher]

Question?
If you rented rooms out in a houses to separate tenants on separate ast's and a room became vacate and the landlord moved in would the tenants then become lodgers with lodgers rights (very little) and you could evict without going down the s21 and/or s8 route which you couldn't before?

No. A landlord needs to have been resident when the tenancy was granted.

[johnboy]

But it surely it cant be a AST any more because the landlord is now in residence. Or am I missing something.

Is there any case law for a similar situation.

It is a hypothetical question I dont have any plans for a dodgy eviction.

[jeffrey]

No. A landlord needs to have been resident when the tenancy was granted.
Wrong, I think. Read s.1(2), esp. the bit that I've underlined which means that a letting can move in and out of AST status (e.g. if L becomes resident under paragraph 10 in Schedule 1):

1. Assured tenancies.
(1) A tenancy under which a dwelling-house is let as a separate dwelling is for the purposes of this Act an assured tenancy if and so long as:
(a) the tenant or, as the case may be, each of the joint tenants is an individual; and
(b) the tenant or, as the case may be, at least one of the joint tenants occupies the dwelling-house as his only or principal home; and
(c) the tenancy is not one which, by virtue of subsection (2) or subsection (6) below, cannot be an assured tenancy.

(2) Subject to subsection (3) below [NOTE: which subsection is irrelevant], if and so long as a tenancy falls within any paragraph in Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act, it cannot be an assured tenancy; and in that Schedule—
(a) “tenancy” means a tenancy under which a dwelling-house is let as a separate dwelling;...

[Lawcruncher]

As to resident landlords, for a tenancy to be one falling within Part 1 of Schedule 1 the conditions set out in paragraph 10 (1) must be met. One of those conditions is that the landlord was resident at the time the tenancy was granted.

[jeffrey]

As to resident landlords, for a tenancy to be one falling within Part 1 of Schedule 1 the conditions set out in paragraph 10 (1) must be met. One of those conditions is that the landlord was resident at the time the tenancy was granted.
Yes, but a Tenancy can nevertheless move in and out (e.g. if resident L leaves, then later returns). Here's paragraph 10(1) anyway:

10. Resident landlords
(1) A tenancy in respect of which the following conditions are fulfilled:

(a) that the dwelling-house forms part only of a building and, except in a case where the dwelling-house also forms part of a flat, the building is not a purpose-built block of flats; and

(b) that, subject to Part III of this Schedule, the tenancy was granted by an individual who, at the time when the tenancy was granted, occupied as his only or principal home another dwelling-house which,
(i) in the case mentioned in paragraph (a) above, also forms part of the flat; or
(ii) in any other case, also forms part of the building; and

(c) that, subject to Part III of this Schedule, at all times since the tenancy was granted the interest of the landlord under the tenancy has belonged to an individual who, at the time he owned that interest, occupied as his only or principal home another dwelling-house which,
(i) in the case mentioned in paragraph (a) above, also formed part of the flat; or
(ii) in any other case, also formed part of the building; and

(d) that the tenancy is not one which is excluded from this sub-paragraph by sub-paragraph (3) below.

[Lawcruncher]

Yes, but a Tenancy can nevertheless move in and out (e.g. if resident L leaves, then later returns).

Agreed, but I said: "A landlord needs to have been resident when the tenancy was granted" which you said was was wrong, but is not. :)

[jeffrey]

Agreed, but I said: "A landlord needs to have been resident when the tenancy was granted" which you said was was wrong, but is not.
The confusion is because post #1 speaks of a property on which there are several ASTs.
I do agree that L (not resident at tenancy start) cannot move-in to a property covered by one single AST and thereby change its status!