Research lodger or tenant and what's the most suitable lease agreement?

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

    Research lodger or tenant and what's the most suitable lease agreement?

    Hi!

    Thanks for resource

    Is [this] article still correct/valid?

    In my current temporary living arrangement, I almost certainly fall into the "third scenario":
    > However, there is also a third scenario; a half way house between Lodger and Tenant. This is sometimes known as an “Occupier with Basic Protection” or a “Tenant with Restricted Rights” which in reality is a Common Law tenancy. This situation exists where the landlord lives in the same building as the tenant (except a purpose built block of flats) but does not share facilities – the tenant has self-contained accommodation.

    How, and from who, do I get authoritative confirmation of my status (i.e. lodger or tenant) so I can use this as grounds to switch from a lodger to a AST agreement?

    Hope to hear back

    Cheers

    [this]: https://www.landlordzone.co.uk/infor...ger-vs-tenant/

    #2
    Originally posted by ldexterldesign View Post
    How, and from who, do I get authoritative confirmation of my status (i.e. lodger or tenant) so I can use this as grounds to switch from a lodger to a AST agreement?
    You can pay a solicitor or barrister and they will give you an opinion that is authoritative (but not definitive).
    A court would give a definitive answer if the issue was before them.

    People on here can offer an opinion.

    There's nothing that makes me think that article is out of date.

    If you are an occupier with basic protection an AST agreement wouldn't be appropriate either.

    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


      #3
      Thanks for reply

      > If you are an occupier with basic protection an AST agreement wouldn't be appropriate either.

      Care to elaborate?

      Hope to hear back

      Cheers

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by ldexterldesign View Post
        If you are an occupier with basic protection an AST agreement wouldn't be appropriate either.
        An arrangement between a landlord and an occupier with basic protection is a common law tenancy not an Assured Shorthold Tenancy.
        Having an AST agreement would be misleading.

        It would make it appear that the landlord had obligations and the tenant had rights that they don't actually have.
        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


          #5
          There s a third type of contract a “non-assured shorthold tenancy agreement” which is used if the landlord lives in the same house as you but you do not share facilities with them. This does not provide the protections against eviction, the landlord does not need to protect a deposit and only one months notice is needed to evict. A possession order is needed to evict under this contract but is usually rubber stamped in normal times.

          Comment


            #6
            What is your precise situation? Do you share any facilities with your landlord?

            Comment


              #7
              jpkeates hmm, thanks for elaborating but this doesn't add much to the discussion; it's stating the obvious to me 🙂

              Comment


                #8
                Hi Dreamingofsea,

                Thanks for reply

                I will look into NASTs, but there doesn't seem to be much info on it - do you know its history?

                My situation is a converted garage to a self contained studio flat (i.e. we share the driveway and have separate entrances to separate buildings). My landlord lives on the property but not in my property. Does this answer your question?

                Cheers

                Comment


                  #9
                  NRLA and shelter websites have some info. It sounds like a non-assured shorthold agreement but annexes are a bit of a grey area. Also I don t know if a garage conversion is considered an annex in these circumstances.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Dreamingofsea

                    Ahh, thanks for NRLA, I read Shelter

                    > Also I don t know if a garage conversion is considered an annex in these circumstances

                    If not simply semantics then care to elaborate?

                    Hope to hear back

                    Cheers

                    Comment


                      #11
                      You are in my opinion definately not a lodger because you can get into your accommodation without sharing even an entrance with your landlord. That leaves an AST or a NASTA(common law). I cannot give you a definitive answer because the case law on these situations is very thin on the ground since it rarely comes to court. I doubt even an expert solicitor could give you a definative answer since I think it is a question that would have to be for a court to decide. The landlord (if I was yours) should give a NASTA and get a possession order to evict you but you could defend that possibly by saying you think you have an AST but ultimately I think it would be up to a judge to decide. There have been arguments in the past that annexes are totally separate to a studio in a house and therefore should be an AST. It is a very grey area and I m no expert, I would know more about it if your studio was in the main house. As JPK has advised I would consult a solicitor very experienced in housing law . Have you got a lodger s agreement because that s definately not correct.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        There is no legal "lodger" tenancy status that I'm aware of. What most people refer to as lodgers are either excluded tenants or licensees, usually depending on whether they have exclusive possession of any rooms.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by ldexterldesign View Post
                          jpkeates hmm, thanks for elaborating but this doesn't add much to the discussion; it's stating the obvious to me 🙂
                          Apologies for that.

                          Would you prefer an answer that is more palatable, but wrong?


                          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
                            Admin, please approve my previous post so the conversation can proceed

                            If there's a problem then let me know so I can fix it

                            Thanks in advance

                            Comment


                              #15
                              DPT57

                              Hi,

                              Thanks for reply

                              Yes, I'm familiar with some of those terms/definitions, which Shelter tenancy rights checker tool mentions

                              FYI:
                              - my landlord lives elsewhere on *but not in* the same property as me
                              - I have purpose built exclusive possession
                              - I don't share any rooms with my landlord

                              Hope this helps

                              Cheers

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X