Hello - this is first time here - hope someone can help. I am buying my ex-partner's property and he will remain there on an Assured Tenancy. He is expecting a 'lodger' to move in shortly (whilst he still owns the property) and I am afraid that when the house purchase goes through, I will then have to take this 'lodger' on. I do not particularly trust the lodger, and feel he would be very difficult to move on if I ever wanted him to leave. Currently, there is nothing in writing, but the proposed lodger will be mostly using the room which I use when I (infrequently) stay over. Even when I own the property, I intend to assert my right to use this room, and the lodger will have to sleep on the settee downstairs. I do not want him to acquire 'tenancy' rights even if he stays for some considerable time. Any advice?
-
-
The lodger has almost no occupancy rights - BUT the agreement would be between the lodger and the tenant, ie you could not remove the lodger because they are not your lodger. To remove the lodger, you would have to remove the tenant (and the lodger goes with the tenant).
If you are the landlord, and are letting the whole property to the tenant, the you can not assert any 'right' to use a particular room - because no such right exists, the tenant has exclusive occupancy rights of the whole property. Even if you write the tenancy as "123 High Street EXCLUDING front bedroom" how would you get to 'your' room without using space that you are charging someone else for exclusive use of?.gif "(happy)")
-
Thanks for yr reply. If the agreement then is between the tenant (my ex-partner) and the lodger, I would have to get my ex-partner to ask him to leave. I do not want the lodger to become a joint tenant as then he would have more rights. It seems much easier to leave him as a 'lodger' which I will inherit when I purchase property. Hope I have understood this correctly - also appreciate your comments about not being able to use 'my room'. I understood that a 'lodger' does not necessarily have rights to any one room but could be moved about by my tenant who would, in effect, be the 'resident landlord' although I would be the property owner. ?Comment
-
If your Ex is on an on an Assured Tenancy, i assume it's through a letting agent.
Or is it something you drew up ?
However, Does the Assured Tenancy stipulate "Not to sub-let in part or whole",
If so, your pex-partner cannot have a lodger.
I feel this is not a straight forward "written" tenancy ?
R.a.M.Comment
-
OP owns the property F/H at the moment as per first post, OP will presumably be arranging for AST to be drawn up, thus it can be an AST with/without the clause, however, OP can choose to/not to enforce the clause.Originally posted by ram View Post[I]The opinions I give are simply my opinions and interpretations of what I have learnt, in numerous years as a property professional, I would not rely upon them without consulting with a paid advisor and providing them with all the relevant facts[I]Comment
-
Thanks for responses. Property still owned by ex-partner, but sale to me imminent. I was thinking I would get my 'ex' to temporarily move out and at same time remove lodger so that when my purchase goes through I will take property with vacant possession - then I can reinstate my ex-partner on an Assured Tenancy agreement - he does need a lodger to help pay bills etc, but not the one who is there at moment who I believe to be violent and an alcoholic. Hope this works out. Am really pleased to have found this site - its brilliant.
suemacComment
-
Remember, it will not be your choice who the lodger is.Comment
-
But your solicitor really should be insisting on vacant possession on completion - it is far too risky otherwise.'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great ExpectationsComment
-
BUT, if suemac owns the house, She dictates who can live there by means of theOriginally posted by Snorkerz View Post
terms of the AST, which she can add additional clauses in.
Not to sublet part or whole, or take in lodgers without the express authorisation of
the Owner ( This is in most AST's not to sublet. )
She may want to stipulate that any other person residing in her house must have an AST
if she wishes to go that route.
I know it is difficult with an ex-partner, but she is starting from scratch, vacant possession,
then issuing an AST for ex partner, so i see no problem with the standard clause not to sublet
without authorisation, which means she can vet the lodger.
Yes ?Comment
-
In theory, yes.Originally posted by ram View Post
In practice, it could turn out to be a hornets' nest.'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great ExpectationsComment
-
I assume the house is being sold as the both were entiled to 50% and suemacOriginally posted by mind the gap View Post
buying him out.
If that is the case, It is normaly better to sell the house, and you go your separate ways,
as to have an ex dictating how long you can live in a house, throwing him out if he violates
the headlease or terms of the A.S.T. then he causes problems cos he resents being under
her thumb, ( legally under her thumb ), then all sorts of disasters can happen.
Consider selling the house, and your ex can go and rent somewhere else, and your life will
be trouble free. Yes, you can make this situation a REAL hornets nest in the future, when
he despises you for having a legal hold over him, via an AST.
Marrage, isn't even that restrictive. If you breech the lease, the wife does not throw you out,
but in your house, on your AST, one day it may come to that.
Sell up and go your separate ways.
Ram, ( Part time Marriage councellor )Comment
Comment