Tenant moved father in. Advice please.

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

    #16
    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
    If the daughter has moved him in, she's given him the right to live there, not the landlord.
    That's why it's quite important that the landlord doesn't do anything!
    I think its a risk for the landlord as he has been told formally of the fathers presence.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by DPT57 View Post

      I think its a risk for the landlord as he has been told formally of the fathers presence.
      Can you expand please?

      Comment


        #18
        Its now impossible for you to deny knowledge of his presence and as its a breach of your tenancy agreement you could reasonably be expected to at least investigate it. The risk is probably fairly small, a taking jpkeates point, it may be sufficient for you to write to the tenant and point out the requirements of the Immigration Act 2016 and stating that its her responsibility to check this.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by DPT57 View Post
          it may be sufficient for you to write to the tenant and point out the requirements of the Immigration Act 2016 and stating that its her responsibility to check this.
          That's an excellent idea - something I wish I'd thought of!


          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


            #20
            There is a widespread misunderstanding about the essential nature of a tenancy. Concentrating solely on landlord and tenant law, if property is let without any conditions imposed the tenant is free to use it for any purpose he likes and that includes having others occupy the property with him. Of course landlords can, and regularly do, impose restrictions. If you wish to restrict the number of occupants you must say so clearly. Even if you do, the restriction must be reasonable having regard to the accommodation in the property. Restricting occupancy to one person is fine if what is let is a bedsit with a single bed. However, it is not if what is let is a three-bedroomed house. You run the risk that you will be found to be derogating from your grant because it is reasonable to suppose that it is in the contemplation of the tenant that all the bedrooms will be used by residents.

            By all means prohibit subletting and taking in lodgers or impose conditions preventing overcrowding or the property from becoming an HMO, but refrain from saying how many persons may occupy the property unless it is a bedsit. Imposing restrictions on the number of occupants is a recent innovation the sole purpose of which is to allow the landlord to increase the rent or charge a fee for consent.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
              Imposing restrictions on the number of occupants is a recent innovation the sole purpose of which is to allow the landlord to increase the rent or charge a fee for consent.
              That might be true in some cases, but there are often restrictions imposed on landlords by insurers, mortgage lenders and superior leases.

              A requirement that all adult occupants of a let property are on AST agreements is common. Or "AST or similar", which is less helpful.
              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


                #22
                Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
                Imposing restrictions on the number of occupants is a recent innovation the sole purpose of which is to allow the landlord to increase the rent or charge a fee for consent.
                Or to avoid being prosecuted for overcrowding?

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                  That's why it's quite important that the landlord doesn't do anything!
                  Including raising the rent!

                  I don't agree that increased wear and tear is sufficient to justify a 10% rent increase (as you previously suggested).

                  Comment


                    #24
                    I used to consider that when dealing with some of my tenants I had been outmaneuvered. I think that this is what is about to happen with you.
                    It would not surprise me if as they have registered the father with the council, their next step if to get her father listed on your tenancy agreement, she then moves away leaving an unemployed 64 year old with little english as your sole tenant.
                    If it was me I would as soon as possible serve notice to quit.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by MdeB View Post
                      I don't agree that increased wear and tear is sufficient to justify a 10% rent increase (as you previously suggested).
                      I wouldn't link the two things, I'd just put the rent up.

                      Originally posted by Always Problems View Post
                      It would not surprise me if as they have registered the father with the council, their next step if to get her father listed on your tenancy agreement, she then moves away leaving an unemployed 64 year old with little english as your sole tenant
                      The same thought occurred to me, which is another reason for not changing the tenancy.

                      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


                        #26
                        Originally posted by DPT57 View Post
                        it may be sufficient for you to write to the tenant and point out the requirements of the Immigration Act 2016 and stating that its her responsibility to check this.
                        Isn't that the responsibility of the landlord and not the tenant?

                        Comment


                          #27
                          It's the responsibility of whoever gives the person permission to reside in the property.
                          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


                            #28
                            Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                            That might be true in some cases, but there are often restrictions imposed on landlords by insurers, mortgage lenders and superior leases.
                            It is certaintly desirable to make sure that a tenancy agreement dovetails with such requirements. However, either requirements are reasonable or they are not whoever imposes them.

                            Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                            A requirement that all adult occupants of a let property are on AST agreements is common. Or "AST or similar", which is less helpful.
                            Just because requirements are common does not mean they are reasonable. A lot is common is BTL which was once rare.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Originally posted by MdeB View Post
                              Or to avoid being prosecuted for overcrowding?
                              That can be covered by an express covenant aganst overcrowding.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
                                Just because requirements are common does not mean they are reasonable. A lot is common is BTL which was once rare.
                                I agree with the sentiment, but, day to day, have to deal with the way things are, not the way I would like them to be.
                                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

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X