Moving back into my property, can I change the tenants into lodgers?

[trv85]

Hi,

Just wanted to ask a quick question. I'm moving back into my rental property but was wondering if I could keep two of the current tenants as lodgers? I'm currently letting through an agency but the tenancy agreement makes no mention of this. I think usually if the tenancy comes to an end but you keep the tenants on privately you'd be expected to pay the agency something, however in this instance the relationship is changing as they're not strictly tenants anymore. I'm reluctant to ask the agency and I'd rather not offer something to the tenants yet that I'm unable to deliver. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!

[jpkeates]

What you need to do with regards to the agency will depend on your agreement with them.
I can't imagine it would cover your scenario.

And that's because it's extremely unusual for a landlord to move into a property with their tenants still in it, largely because it's probably a criminal offence.
The conventional approach is to end the tenancies and then move back in.

How do you plan to end the tenancies?

[trv85]

Thanks for the reply. Sorry I should have made it clear, there is a break clause of 6 months in the one year contract. After four months you can give the tenants 2 months notice to leave. This is how I intend to end the tenancy. I understand it would involve them having to remove their possessions whilst the professional cleaning takes place and the moving out inventory taking place and deductions from the deposits where necessary. I understand it might be easier to find new lodgers, but they are good tenants and as I'm going to need lodgers anyway it could be beneficial to both of us.

[jpkeates]

As long as the tenants cooperate and move out, that sounds like it should work.

If any of the tenants don't move out in line with the break clause, a periodic tenancy will arise automatically (depending on whether they are joint tenants or on separate tenancies it will be for any who remain or all of them).
So they're all going to need to both cooperate and move out for a while.

[theartfullodger]

The break clause does not end the tenancy, you need court then Bailiffs/HCEO to do that.

Could turn out break clause is unenforceable - often drafted by people without legal expertise.

I agree, end tenancy, evict tenants, move back then get lodgers.

Why do you think tenancy permits you to move back in with them there anyway please?

[jpkeates]

The break clause does not end the tenancy, you need court then Bailiffs/HCEO to do that.

Technically, executing a (valid) break clause does end the tenancy, it just goes periodic if the tenants don't move out.

[trv85]

Why do you think tenancy permits you to move back in with them there anyway please?

Thanks for the response, that's what I want to know. Obviously if I wasn't living there then it would not be permitted without the agreement of the agents and I'm assuming a fee, but if the tenancy has ended and I am living there then technically they are no longer tenants and would be lodgers. I can no longer access the original terms of business I signed with the agents so just wanted to know if there is a precedent in this situation.

[trv85]

As long as the tenants cooperate and move out, that sounds like it should work.

If any of the tenants don't move out in line with the break clause, a periodic tenancy will arise automatically (depending on whether they are joint tenants or on separate tenancies it will be for any who remain or all of them).
So they're all going to need to both cooperate and move out for a while.

Thanks for the info. I need to give it a bit of thought, might be simpler just to get new people in.

[theartfullodger]

Thanks for the response, that's what I want to know. Obviously if I wasn't living there then it would not be permitted without the agreement of the agents and I'm assuming a fee, but if the tenancy has ended and I am living there then technically they are no longer tenants and would be lodgers. I can no longer access the original terms of business I signed with the agents so just wanted to know if there is a precedent in this situation.

I'm sure you have understood that unless tenant departs before end of fixed term, or gives notice & goes, or there is a surrender, the tenancy does not end - it continues a periodic tenancy. A landlord or agent cannot prevent this from happening. So just because the fixed term ends doesn't mean the tenancy has ended! Please confirm you do or do not understand this point, please?

Best regards

[DPT57]

It frequently takes around 6 months to evict a reluctant tenant if you get everything right first time and it goes relatively smoothly. If you sense reluctance from the tenants, I would make other accommodation plans iiwy.

[AndrewDod]

Can we go back to the start here:

If these are separate tenants each with a room (rather than joint tenants) -- that is not at all clear to me...

then why can OP not move in to replace a departing tenant?

Whether that will miraculously convert existing ASTs into lodging arrangements, I doubt, -- but any new tenants would be lodgers.. So OP's objective might be achieved in time.

[nukecad]

Simply moving in cannot convert tenants into lodgers.

If it could then many would be trying it on to get around eviction legislation. I'm thinking HMOs here.

You have to end (all?) the tenancies and move in yourself. Then you can take lodgers - who may just happen to be your ex-tenants.

To make sure I'd get the ex-tenants to move to a hotel/B&B for a week after their tenancies end, before coming back as lodgers.

[AndrewDod]

Simply moving in cannot convert tenants into lodgers.

I already made that point

You have to end (all?) the tenancies and move in yourself. Then you can take lodgers - who may just happen to be your ex-tenants.

Depending on the nature of the tenancy there is no reason at all that OP cannot move in to replace a tenant without ending anything apart from (natural) ending of the tenancy of one tenant. It would not make the EXISTING tenants lodgers though. But would make any new *individual room* tenants lodgers.

[jpkeates]

Depending on the nature of the tenancy there is no reason at all that OP cannot move in to replace a tenant without ending anything apart from (natural) ending of the tenancy of one tenant.

i think that there is.

The landlord's right to enter the property to replace the departing tenant has to be enforced by a court - that seems to apply even if the landlord would be replacing one of the tenants because at least one other person is in occupation. s2 Protection from Eviction Act.

Otherwise you'd think it would happen quite frequently.

[AndrewDod]

i think that there is.

The landlord's right to enter the property to replace the departing tenant has to be enforced by a court - that seems to apply even if the landlord would be replacing one of the tenants because at least one other person is in occupation. s2 Protection from Eviction Act.

Otherwise you'd think it would happen quite frequently.

Even if that tenant has an individual tenancy for a room and is not part of a joint tenant? Where does the legislation distinguish the right of a person who happens to be a landlord to occupy a room (to which other tenants have no right of access) versus any other person.

The rights of the remaining tenants does not alter one jot if this happens. They have no legal relationship with the neighbouring room occupier whether the landlord, the landlord's daughter, or anyone else. And their contracts remain ASTs.

We are not talking about replacement of one of a joint tenant.

To put it differently, if one tenant moved out the landlord could decide to use their room as a store room, or they can leave it empty. They can already get to that room as they have right of access to the common parts. What exactly is it in legislation that says they can put boxes in the room, but not live in the room? I can't see that it has anything to do with protection from eviction.