View Full Version : When is a lodger not a lodger
10-04-2006, 20:54 PM
Certainly different to everything I have learnt about this so far;
In an ongoing conversation elsewhere
"I beleive this to be a situation where the landlord is a resident landlord,
if the lanldlord is a resident then no tenanct can be created, hence these
people are just paying guests, lodgers whatever. If the landlord is
resident then there is no security of tenure and these people do not have
any protection against eviction and can be removed with reasonable force."
(Response from a barrister)
"No, a *tenancy* can be created where there is a resident landlord.
Tenancy = exclusive possession for a fixed term. If they have locks on
their rooms and can exclude the landlord, then they have a tenancy of
their rooms -- with what sounds like a license to use other parts of
the building. I've cited authority for this proposition already, have
you any evidence to the contrary?"
11-04-2006, 02:16 AM
If they have locks on their rooms and can exclude the landlord,
Can we have a simple stage one query of a single rent a room in the landlord's house. Presumably the landlord doesn't want to be up all hours for the tenant! It's clear that a key to the front door will give no possession rights!
An internal bolt would be sufficient to the lodger to have privacy when present in the room.
Would a lodger expect a key as well? If so would the landlord be entitled for safety and maintenance issues to ask for the key to be left on a designated hook when the lodger goes out? Could there be conditions attached to the provision of any key that make it clear that the use of the lock is not intended to exclude the landlord who has a master key for use in defined circumstances?
Are there Human Rights aspects also to be considered?
I recognise that conversation !!
I am equally baffled. In the same conversation there were several things that I didn't quite understand.
11-04-2006, 14:00 PM
This is a confusing area of the law.
There is in fact a half-way house between tenant (full tenancy rights) and lodger (licence to occupy) - it's call an "Occupier with BASIC PROTECTION"
This situation arises where the tenant shares a house with the landlord, but not the accommodation. This situation also applies to student halls of residence.
Therefore in this situation the tenant has most of the protection of a shorthold tenancy and the landlord would need to give the usual section 21 notice and get a court order to evict.
11-04-2006, 15:10 PM
The authority that the barrister quoted was from Uratemp Ventures Limited v. Collins and the decision was that Collins had an Assured Tenancy.
The 2 statements below should help to clear the when & why;
"I think that the true test, where the tenant has the exclusive use of some rooms and shares certain accommodation with others, is as follows: there is a letting of part of a house as a separate dwelling, within the meaning of the relevant Acts if, and only if, the accommodation which is shared with others does not comprise any of the rooms which may fairly be described as 'living rooms' or 'dwelling rooms.' To my mind a kitchen is fairly described as a 'living room,' and thus nobody who shares a kitchen can be said to be tenant of a part of a house let as a separate dwelling. In many households the kitchen is the principal living room, where the occupants spend the greater part of the day. Very often it is the warmest part of the house and the family tend to congregate there for that reason. On the other hand, both the bathroom and the w.c. are rooms which are only visited on occasions for a specific purpose, and I think they may fairly be classed with such a room as a box-room, though no doubt it is not visited so often".
"(1.) A portion of a house which is let by a landlord to a tenant, even if in itself separate, ceases to be a separate dwelling or to be protected by the Acts if the terms of the letting contain a provision that the tenant shall have the right of using a living room belonging to the landlord: Neale v Del Soto  KB 144 (2) To take away the protection of the Acts, the room over which rights are given must be a living room: a bathroom, lavatory or cupboard will not avail, but for this purpose a kitchen is a living room: see Cole v Harris  KB 474."
26-04-2006, 16:43 PM
This is an interesting thread
I was thinking of getting lodgers into my house - I was going to keep one room at the front of the house (downstairs) and let the 3 bedrooms - the lodgers would have access to the house via the backdoor, their own shared etterbox and key-lockable locks on their individual rooms
Does this constitute a HMO or would it be Lodgers.
If it is Lodgers, would they have statutory rights or would they have to leave when i wanted them to ??
I am basd in Peterborough, Cambridgeshire.
28-04-2006, 15:57 PM
can anyone help on this
28-04-2006, 16:21 PM
In the latest edition of the Lettings Update Journal it states that the rule of the residential landlord status gives the landlord greater rights of possession.
It goes on to say that the rule 'would normally apply' to a house converted into flats and would still confer resident landlord status on the owner even if he only occupied one of the flats! BUT if the property were of purpose built flats then other occupants would have AST's. I'm not arguing the point, merely to tell you about another opinion! Only the courts can decide and case law doesn't set a precedence I might add, and is only a guide!
28-04-2006, 18:28 PM
salaam aleykum saleem
the situation you describe would appear to be an HMO (indeed, a landlord and one lodger would be an HMO) but provided the renters were sharing living accommodation and you were resident in the house they would be your lodgers and would have no security. Make sure you spell it all out in a written agreement and get them to sign it.
All the best
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.