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

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by ldexterldesign View Post
    Yes, I need to persuade my landlord to migrate from a lodger agreement to a tenant agreement. I'm strategising how to do this but on paper it does seem an AST is the most suitable agreement. I will relay something to the effect of: not having the correct agreement in place tends to forfeit the landlord rights, not the occupier rights, if a problem arises, which I read on authority.
    The landlord is likely to believe that there are significant benefits to a licence agreement, which gives you many fewer rights than you would have with an AST.

    Unless they understand that the agreement is actually an AST regardless of what it says, they're unlikely to want to change anything, because they'll think they're doing something to their disadvantage.

    It might be an advantage if your landlord took some legal advice about their own position.

    There are downsides for the landlord, because there are penalties for not protecting a deposit connected to an AST, but, again, the landlord is likely to believe that they are doing the best thing for them (otherwise why not use an AST in the first place)?
    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).


      Originally posted by ldexterldesign View Post
      If you're anti-social then ask yourself why you're using a help forum?? 😕
      I am usually helpful, but my patience is tried by people who deal with requests for clarity by just referring to earlier answers.
      I still don't know for sure if the garage is attached to the house - I know it is a 'separate building', which I think very likely means it isn't attached at all - but some people do refer to seperate, and attached, buildings in different ways.
      As you didn't want to help clear up possible ambiguities you shouldn't be surprised if some people don't want to risk wasting time on something that could end up all being wrong anyway.


        I think on the facts it's most likely to be a common law tenancy as clearly the garage is annexed to the house, whether detached or attached.


          jpkeates thanks for thinking for me!




            Thanks for reply

            If "garage" is as pertinent as it seems here then my apologies to Ted.E.Bear



              Originally posted by ldexterldesign View Post
              If "garage" is as pertinent as it seems here
              For a summary, see



                Thanks for that resource

                I think the three most relevant sections are:


                > In Lewis-Graham v Conacher6, an extension which was originally a granny flat and garage had been added to a semi-detached house. It had connecting doors between the house and the extension which were locked. There was a common gas, electric and water supply. At that stage, it was clearly one building. The landlord subsequently carried out works to divide the two dwellings into “separate buildings” after serving notice on his tenant (but had not completed the work before the notice had expired). The Court held that there was still one building. Interestingly, the Court also stated that they did not feel that it would be a separate dwelling even if the services were separate (as they were subsequently).

                Unable to infer unless "services" is defined


                > Purpose-built
                > “Purpose-built block of flats” is defined in sch. 1, para 22. It must as constructed contain two or more flats. The date of construction is the relevant time to consider, and a distinction is drawn between conversions of existing buildings (which would only in the most exceptional circumstances constitute “purpose-built blocks of flats”) and constructions of new buildings (which if they consist of two or more flats will be within the definition).

                I infer my rental is not purpose built because it doesn't contain >1 thing


                > “Same building”
                > Whether the dwelling-house let to the tenant forms part of the same building (or flat) as the dwelling-house occupied by the landlord is an issue within the legislation which seems to cause the most confusion to practitioners. This confusion is understandable, since the distinctions are obscure and in some cases appear to lead to conflicting conclusions – something all practitioners of housing law will find eminently familiar !
                > For example, is our granny annex in the initial example to be considered as “part of the building” ? Clearly where the annex is a separate building, say adjacent to the landlord’s own dwelling (or even at the bottom of the landlord’s garden), then it will not be part of the same building (as there is a no significant physical connection between the two buildings) and thus the landlord will not fall within the “resident landlord” status.
                > But, what if the landlord builds an extension onto his house for use as rental accommodation, and the extension has no interconnecting doors with the original building ?
                > Whether or not the landlord’s dwelling house and the tenant’s dwelling house is deemed to form part of the same building is a question of fact and degree. But in coming to an overall decision on this matter, it is likely that a court will pay significant regard to the intention of the statutory provision when the legislation was drafted3, which was to allow the landlord to remove a tenant who lives in close proximity to him.

                As it stands, I infer my landlord is not resident, which seems to be the most important factor in concluding this case, because there is a no significant physical connection between our (i.e. landlord and my) two buildings

                Can anyone clarify what "statutory provision" means?

                Hope to hear back



                  Statutory provision means the statutory law as laid out in the legislation.

                  The point is to look at the purpose and intention of the law. My opinion is that you live in close proximity to your landlord in a building annexed from the main property but which is within the curtilage of that property and as such probably have a common law tenancy, there is a case to support my view.


                  Latest Activity