My Lodger is not Leaving - Please help with legal advice.

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

  • mariner
    replied
    IMO, you need a good Solicitor, which we cannot recommend.
    Lodger status was expunged when the resident LL vacated for than a reasonable holiday.
    Proceed with s8, you may get a sympathetic Judge.
    T may claim for any rent paid, without due Notice of current LL who could find themslves in deeper SH1T.

    Leave a comment:


  • kuwi
    replied
    Thank you for all your comments - Appreciated.
    Can anyone recommend a good solicitor please ?

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Honestly, you need proper legal advice.
    This is a huge mess and it's getting worse with everything you do.

    Legal advice only seems expensive when you compare it with nothing.
    When you compare it with the costs of getting this wrong, it'd cheap.

    If the person is a lodger, you can give them notice and lock them out at the end of it.
    If they're a tenant and you do that, you (or your mother) can be fined and go to prison.
    It's not something to be tip toeing round trying to find answers online.
    You need a solicitor.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snorkerz
    replied
    Originally posted by kuwi View Post
    Its a three room house all three rooms were at one point were all occupied by three different lodgers
    I will ask for others opinions because I am not an expert on resident landlords / lodgers, but I don't believe any of them could have been lodgers if there were 3 of them occupying all 3 bedrooms - ie, no where for a resident landlord to reside. And if they were't lodgers, they were tenants. As your current occupier was one of those 3, they are still a tenant and can not be 'downgraded' to a lodger.

    At the time the property was occupied by 3 'lodgers', it was a HMO, which is subject to much higher safety standards etc than a regular residential let, does the property comply? Was it licensed by the local authority?

    If I am right on my first point, this may be very relevant to issues of deposit protection (was a deposit taken?) and eviction.

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    You would help yourself OP if you did not start a new thread on the identical topic.

    Leave a comment:


  • kuwi
    replied
    Originally posted by Snorkerz View Post
    You state that the landlord has now moved back into the house full time, can you clarify:
    • Did the original agreement specify what room the lodger occupied?
    • When, and for how long, did the landlord not use it as his/her primary residence


    Hi

    The Lodger agreement specify the room as a room number 2. And since then she actually have moved to room number 3 as the landlord has disability issue and wanted to stay in the ground floor the lodger agreed to move to upper floor room.

    With regards to the landlord -

    The landlord wast living a the house as she was hospitalised due to long term mental health condition.

    Since the commencement of the lodger agreement - February 19 and the landlord moved back in 1st of March 2020.

    All her bills ie council tax bills utility bills were coming to the house. Its a three room house all three rooms were at one point were all occupied by three different lodgers. Although only the one in question now still remain in the house.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snorkerz
    replied
    You state that the landlord has now moved back into the house full time, can you clarify:
    • Did the original agreement specify what room the lodger occupied?
    • When, and for how long, did the landlord not use it as his/her primary residence

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Unless any new agreement refers back to a previous agreement, the new one should entirely replace the old one.

    So, the old one shouldn't affect any eviction (although if the occupant makes claims about the period - such as an unprotected deposit, the agreement may constitute evidence).

    Yes, the tenant can make a claim even if there's a subsequent new agreement - for up to six years.

    The landlord has to be resident. That isn't the same as physically present at the point where the tenant moved in. If they were, for example, on holiday, they would still be resident.
    If however, the landlord was actually living somewhere else, and wasn't resident in the property, the occupant couldn't have been a lodger and may have been a tenant.

    If the occupant was a tenant and the landlord has moved in, the landlord has probably committed a criminal offence.

    Leave a comment:


  • kuwi
    replied
    Hi

    If a lodger who hasn't been paid rent and the lodger and landlord mutually agreed to reduce the current rent to what the lodger is able to now pay with her current benefit….
    1. Can the landlord issue her new lodger agreement ?
    1. Will the previous lodger agreement come to any effect (Legally) if the landlord would like to evict the tenant from the house in the future ?
    1. Can the lodger still legally challenge that her first moved in date to the house and she is a tenant and has the rights of a tenant still with conjunction of the first lodger agreement ?
      1. Specially if the landlord hasn’t been living at the house from the date that lodger moved in to the room and the lodger is challenging that she is not excluded occupier as the landlord wasn’t living at the house.

    PS - Landlord is now moved back in to the house full-time.


    Leave a comment:


  • hamilton
    replied
    Have a read of this:

    http://www.lodgerlandlord.co.uk/2010...r-who-wont-go/

    Leave a comment:


  • hamilton
    replied
    If this person is a lodger, then you don't need any court process to evict them! You just need to change the locks. And perhaps get a policeman in attendance if you fear there might be a breach of the peace. It's up to you how much notice you give. Generally it's recommended to be equal to the payment period (e.g. if the lodger pays weekly, then give a week's notice). But where you can argue that your mother faces an immediate threat to her safety, you can pretty much just kick them out straight away.

    Leave a comment:


  • kuwi
    replied
    Thank you very much for all for your advice. Glad to know that there are nice people out there that would take time to help with advice.

    My mum and I both struggle to get professional legal advice due to current financial difficulty and that lodger hasn't been paying for over 4 months now. And my mother and I having to pay for all her utility bills and council tax.

    I have few further questions to confirm -

    1. What is the correct legal process to evict her through court process ?

    2. Also if the section 8 notice not valid as she has a lodger agreement will the court accept our case ? The lodger hasn't been issued with Section 47/48 notice to set terms of an AST which only then validate the section 8 ?

    3. If this is likely to be thrown out in the court what possession Court order we can take with 28 days’ notice to quite ?


    I do not want the lodger suing my mother for damages so I like to evict her somehow through only court order.


    Thanks All.

    Leave a comment:


  • DPT57
    replied
    Yes, I think there is a good chance that a judge would agree with that. The slight doubt is the fact that the OP mentions temporary accommodation for over a year and moving the majority of her possessions to this accommodation, and doesn't say that this was directly linked to her medical condition. If it were a respite centre or some kind of supported living linked to her recovery I might feel a little more confident.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snorkerz
    replied
    DPT57,

    Although I admit that the relevant cases are not directly linked to this, the courts have made decisions that a property can still be someones'only or principal home' whilst they are in hospital, even for a long time.

    The cases that come to mind are where landlords have claimed a tenant is no longer using as only or principal as part of eviction proceedings. Brickfield Properties Ltd v Hughes (1987) 20 HLR 108

    Leave a comment:


  • leaseholder64
    replied
    As noted, issuing section 8 undermines your argument that this is not an AST.

    I think this is test case material, but it seems to me that it violates the assumptions on the nature of lodgers, so this is more about whether or not the mother is an excluded landlord.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X