Difficult situation with tenants

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Difficult situation with tenants

    Hi, I just wanted some advice regarding a complex situation. I am an owner of a property I inherited from my late mother and my son currently lives in the property. There are also 2 other bedrooms in the house which have been rented out as individual rooms via an AST agreement between myself and the tenants. The problem is that both tenants (who are cousins and arrived to together), have been causing a lot of nuisance in the property; have damaged furniture in rooms and the bathroom has now developed mould and is extremely dirty. They have been causing problems for my son and he has had arguments with them; my son advised me from the beginning to have a lodgers agreement between him and the tenants although I was advised by my agent to proceed with a tenancy agreement. Now, their tenancy is due to expire on 18th May 2020 and I just want them out regardless. They have caused a lot of damage, and I feel that the deposits of £700 each they have paid will not cover it; in addition the tenancy includes bills and has a fair usage policy. My question is what are my rights here as I cannot even evict them for 3 months due to the coronavirus crisis. Can my son argue there was never a tenancy or do we have to wait several months for an eviction?

    Thanks, any help would be appreciated

    #2
    I think you should have listened to your son, and had them as your sons lodgers!! They do indeed have an AST and believe it may be the long haul to remove them.

    Comment


      #3
      They may be lodgers anyway as your son is living there. I'm not sure how your AST affects things though. Others here may have more insight

      Comment


        #4
        Just a thought, did your agreement specifically state it was an AST, or, were you perhaps tempted to try and wriggle out of by stating on the agreement that it wasn't an AST?

        Comment


          #5
          If you have an agreement with the 2 tenants, then you will have to wait it out. Did you perform an inventory? If so you may have a slight chance of getting their deposit, if you didn't then there is probably zero chance, also if they both say it was your son who caused the damage not sure how you will prove it.

          If you went through an agent, why don't you get them to make contact and tell them the LL has decided not to renew the contract, that's probably the only thing you can do.

          Comment


            #6
            Hi, we took a full inventory when they moved in by the estate agents. The tenancy agreement clearly states AST of a single room including bills. I have served them notice but they are refusing to leave; I was hoping they would now sign a lodgers agreement so my son has more protection but that is unlikely as one of them is a lawyer and is very clued up on this. I do feel like maybe I should contact their employers as a last resort, but then again what would that change? looks like I may need to wait it out!

            Comment


              #7
              Could you explain exactly what the AST says that the tenant is renting - how is the property described?

              What reason did the agency give for the agreement needing to be an AST?
              When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
              Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

              Comment


                #8
                It is described as "Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement - For the letting of a room in a shared house or flat". The agent has been very poor and advised that as the owner of the property I am the landlord and as I am not living there I cannot have a lodgers agreement.

                Comment


                  #9
                  I don't see how the agent has been poor, it sounds like they have just informed you of the law.

                  Next time, listen to your son! It would indeed have been far better if they were his lodgers. Then they would have known that he was the boss of the house.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Did you protect their Deposits?

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by mn90312 View Post
                      It is described as "Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement - For the letting of a room in a shared house or flat"
                      How is the property described, it doesn't really matter what the agreement says it is.
                      Originally posted by hamilton View Post
                      I don't see how the agent has been poor, it sounds like they have just informed you of the law.
                      Except that isn't the law.
                      It isn't necessary to be the owner of the property to be the landlord.



                      When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                      Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                        It isn't necessary to be the owner of the property to be the landlord.
                        I'm quite aware of this! However OP makes clear that they are both the owner and the landlord. The two cousins are tenants with room-only ASTs, which non-resident OP has signed as the landlord.

                        Is there potentially any wiggle room as to the legal status of the son? Presumably he didn't also sign a room-only AST with his mother. But he can't be said to be one-half of the landlord - or can he?

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by hamilton View Post
                          I'm quite aware of this! However OP makes clear that they are both the owner and the landlord. The two cousins are tenants with room-only ASTs, which non-resident OP has signed as the landlord.
                          My point was that the agent's advice was wrong.
                          It was quite possible for the son to be the other 2 occupant's landlord.

                          So the agent's poor advice has contributed to the mess.

                          My point was that the agent didn't know what they were talking about, not you.
                          When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                          Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Hi thanks for the advice - the AST reads as below

                            Dwelling

                            Contents: The fixtures and fittings at the Property together with any other items as agreed between Landlord and Tenant

                            Term: 6 months with a 3 month break clause.

                            Commencing on: 18 November 2019

                            Rent: £758.33 per calendar month including all bills

                            Payment: in advance by equal monthly payments on the 18th of each month.

                            Deposit: £758.33

                            The deposit will be protected by The Deposit Protection Service (The DPS)

                            - My son found these tenants online and did advertise himself as a live in landlord, although I dont know if there is any loophole out of an AST and to evict on the grounds of being lodgers.

                            Thanks

                            Comment


                              #15
                              My understanding is that a tenant can be a licensee if they share the property with a member of the landlords immediate family who is not themselves a tenant. This may be what a court would decide as the occupation status is meant to reflect the facts rather than the paperwork, but as I indicated earlier, the fact that they were given an AST could be interpreted as an intention to grant more security, which the landlord is perhaps now estopped from overturning.

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X