Lodger or tenant?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    I think Tessa is over simplifying for the general public. The issue here appears to be the length of time the owner has been away from the property. At what point does temporary cease and become permanent? Due to covid, my thoughts are the courts would probably come down in favour of the owner. One of the reasons for my thinking this is they are reluctant to become involved in what Parliament has legislated for and set up. The status of lodger exists to give the owner the right to say who can and can't live in their property. Because the owner has returned I think the courts will on balance find for the owner providing the verbal evidence stacks up. If a judge go any hint of this being contrived i think the result would be different.


      Thanks for the feedback. So in terms of an answer it's either change the locks, or proceed with Court action. Worse case scenario potentially is criminal prosecution on the basis that the police/council won't know the law etc. However if I go to court this could drag on for months and incur costs but if successful I can claim those back from him? Any experience on level of costs if I go down the legal route? I can't imagine a bailiff kicking him out of his room!


        Originally posted by Elephant2021 View Post
        ..... Worse case scenario potentially is criminal prosecution on the basis that the police/council won't know the law etc.......
        Err , no criminal conviction & fines etc. I'm aware of one case of £46,538. Unlikely but possible,

        Well, I'm a gambler, are you?
        I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...


          Urgh, first the confusion with the term lodger as used colloquially to mean someone living with the landlord verse its legal meaning of someone living there with a licence with a landlord/licensor who also live in the same building. Many "lodger" are in fact tenant with an excluded tenancy as they have exclusive possesion of their room, regardless of any kitchen/bathroom sharing, and no service is provided to them by the owner/operator.

          If they truely had a licence only, i.e. no exclusive possession, then it wouldn't matter whether OP ever moved out, temporarily or otherwise. The licence cannot turn into a tenancy, and in turn a tenancy that's assured.

          The question of whether the moving out was temporary only comes into play if the occupier had an excluded tenancy, excluded by the fact that it cannot be assured as they were living with a resident landlord. The test is whether at all time the OP "occupied as his only or principal home". I would suggest probably yes...... except OP went and protected the deposit as if it were an AST while they were away?
          I am not a lawyer, nor am I licensed to provide any regulated advice. None of my posts should be treated as legal or financial advice.

          I do not answer questions through private messages which should be posted publicly on the forum.


          Latest Activity