Drug dealing lodger

[classicbike]

I'm hoping to get some advice on behalf of somebody who now has a problem lodger.

The LL didn't bother to either vet or have a contractual agreement set up for said lodger.

So now he has a lodger who is dealing drugs from the premises. The guy is a well known herion user/dealer in this town, known to local police, and has scores of individuals turning up day/night and then leaving within 5 minutes.

Despite the lack of a signed ageement, does the LL have a chance of evicting the lodger?

[Grrr]

It might be tricky, but should be possible.

In the meantime could the LL warn the lodger that if there is any evidence of dealing or indeed drug use at the premises the LL will have no hesitation in informing the police at each and every occasion?

[mariner]

Why should it be difficult to evict a lodger who is using OPs property for dealing in Class A (allegedly). The OP should report suspicions to Police asap or risk a charge of permitting or conspiracy to supply. House could already be under surveillance.
Give set of keys to drug squad, to save using the enforcer, suggest best day & time for peak 'business' hours. DO NOT mention your suspicions to lodger. If he is caught with dealing quantities he could be in Mags Court next day. I can't see any CC Judge supporting a claim for unfair eviction. Problem is, a custodial is not guaranteed and Plod may want to put him under surveillance for larger pond life.

[classicbike]

@Grrr - The LL has approached the lodger regarding the drug taking part. There is a minor living in the building, and LL was concerned that nothing were lying around, ie needles.

In regards to notifying him of informing the police; I would be concerned of possible retribution in the form of harassment, or worse violence, either from the lodger or from his "friends" if he were actually chucked out. As pointed out by mariner, I feel that a quite chat with the police is in order. Btw, the police are taking an interest in this guy. Only today a police officer turned up to the property as he wanted to check up (in relation to bail?), or speak to him. This have been going on for several weeks.

There are other problems. The lodger had the lock on his door changed without informing the LL (most likely to prevent LL accidentally interfering in his murky affairs). The LL has twice requested a copy of the key just in case there's an emergency, etc. The lodger has failed to comply to these requests. He has a girlfriend stay there every night, despite notices that only the lodger inhabits the room after his friends have left. It has now emerged that a second person, a male, is also staying there at night and is using the kitchen to cook his food!

[jta]

There's only one answer to this.

Get rid of the lodger, give him half an hour's notice and tell him to go, if he will not leave then ask the police for assistance to remove him.

If the police have to come and find evidence of dealing they are going to remove him to the station.

Show signs of weakness and they will take advantage.

[oaktree]

Thee is also the possibility that if the LL leaves it to long and the police take action before he notifies them, he could also be charged with allowing his property to be used. He needs to speak up now.

[Snorkerz]

I am going to wait for some one with more knowledge than I to confirm this - BUT - classisbike mentions the lock on the lodgers door. This implies that the lodger had exclusive use of part of the premises. I am not clear on the line between lodger (shares facilities) and tenant (exclusive use) but I would be very careful to clarify the 'lodgers' exact status before following the 'lodger eviction' route.

[westminster]

I am going to wait for some one with more knowledge than I to confirm this - BUT - classisbike mentions the lock on the lodgers door. This implies that the lodger had exclusive use of part of the premises.

But not granted by the LL. In any case, the LL is still a resident LL, and even if the lodger did have tenancy status he can be evicted without a court order. The only implications of a resident LL granting a tenancy is that s.11 repairing obligations kick in, and LL may be in breach of mortgage/insurance etc.

[westminster]

Despite the lack of a signed ageement, does the LL have a chance of evicting the lodger?

The lack of a written contract is irrelevant.

The lodger can be evicted without a court order because the LL is resident. LL must give 'reasonable' notice (either written or verbal) then, if lodger fails to vacate, LL is entitled to change the locks whilst the lodger is out and refuse re-entry. Reasonable notice in this case would be 24 hours.

For further details on how to evict a lodger, see the following link. It is written by a specialist in landlord and tenant law, and I assure you it's the correct legal position.
http://www.lodgerlandlord.co.uk/2010...r-who-wont-go/

[boletus]

I'm with jta on this.

I think in this case the lock on the lodgers door is a red herring. I can't find anything specific on locks but this seems applicable;

http://pntodd.users.netlink.co.uk/ca...s/street_m.htm
"Exclusive possession is of first importance in considering whether an occupier is a tenant; exclusive possession is not decisive because an occupier who enjoys exclusive possession is not necessarily a tenant. The occupier may be a lodger or service occupier or fall within the other exceptional categories mentioned by Denning LJ in Errington v Errington."

see also;
http://www.lodgerlandlord.co.uk/2010...-and-a-tenant/
"The lodger must not have ‘exclusive occupation’.

This means, basically, that you must not let him put a lock on the door of his room (or indeed any other room) and keep you out. You must maintain the right to go in the room from time to time, although respecting your lodgers privacy at all times.

If your lodger has a lock on his door and you do not have a key, and you have not entered the room without his permission for several months or years, then he may well have a tenancy."

(cross posted with westminster)

[westminster]

If your lodger has a lock on his door and you do not have a key, and you have not entered the room without his permission for several months or years, then he may well have a tenancy."

The issue of whether the lodger has a tenancy or not is irrelevant to OP's friend's problem, which relates to eviction.

Either way, whether the occupier has a licence or tenancy, if the LL is resident the occupier is an excluded occupier and can be evicted without a court order.

[Bel]

I agree with Westminster. As long as the lodger or tenant is sharing facilities with the landlord eg kitchen or bathroom, the landlord can evict

If the landlord has separate facilities within the same house, then he may not be able to evict without a court order.

[boletus]

Originally Posted by boletus
If your lodger has a lock on his door and you do not have a key, and you have not entered the room without his permission for several months or years, then he may well have a tenancy.

The issue of whether the lodger has a tenancy or not is irrelevant to OP's friend's problem, which relates to eviction.

I was responding to the relevant point about the door lock made by snorkerz;

- BUT - classisbike mentions the lock on the lodgers door. This implies that the lodger had exclusive use of part of the premises.

[jta]

The lodger had the lock on his door changed without informing the LL

However he did not have the landlords permission, that makes it deliberate damage to the door.
It doesn't count as exclusive possession.

[Snorkerz]

However he did not have the landlords permission, .

Accepting Westminster et als assurances that a tenancy with a resident landlord does not compromise the eviction, I would add that classicbikes says the lodger 'changed' the lock, implying that there was already a landlord-supplied one there.