Renting a room in a house.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Try and be quick as I'm at work and typing on mobile.

Been renting a room in a house for over a year.

Three lads in three rooms.

Lad #3 moved out last week.

Landlady wants to move back into house but only informs me yesterday that she is doing so on this Thursday.

Wants me out of the room I'm in and into a box room by then.

Came to house today without telling anyone and and moved her things in.

Complained about state of house, dirt etc. One or two things broke in house that were always broke are now blamed on us. Threatening to take whole deposit off us.

Any of this legal? Have I any rights as I'm only renting a room.

quietsailor

First off you need to let us know;
1. Did you rent the property off the landlady herself or rent off one of your housemates. This decides if your a tenant or a licencee
2. If it was off the landlady was she living in the house when you moved in? - Again this decides if your a tenant or a licencee
3. Did you sign a lease?
4. If you signed a lease did it have all your names on it (joint rental) or just your name on it.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

quietsailor wrote: »

First off you need to let us know;
1. Did you rent the property off the landlady herself or rent off one of your housemates. This decides if your a tenant or a licencee
2. If it was off the landlady was she living in the house when you moved in? - Again this decides if your a tenant or a licencee
3. Did you sign a lease?
4. If you signed a lease did it have all your names on it (joint rental) or just your name on it.

Rented off her directly. We paid cash every month.

When I moved in she said she had a room there but only used it from time to time...she used it a handful of times then rented it out to guy #3

We did not sign a lease. I gave her a month plus a week up front as a deposit.

Again no paperwork. No rent book. Usually she would tear a page out and write "rent paid" on it for me.

quietsailor

Ahhh that's messy.

When you moved in it was an owner occupier and you took the room on that basis - that means you were, at that point, a licencee and basically had no rights AT ALL.

Once she moved out it SHOULD have become a Landlord & tenant relationship but you have no proof, no lease, no proof of rent paid -- hand written receipts aren't probably not even worth the paper they're written on. If she's brass necked enough at a PRTB enquiry she can argue she didn't sign that paperwork, it's taking an example to extremes (of how she can say it's not a proper lease).

Your problem is if you start a PRTB enquiry & if she can bull**** the PRTB well enough then they will say "sorry honey monster, you were in a licencee situation, nothing we have power over" then your out in the cold. She can throw you out of the house.

If it was a tenant/LL situation then no, she would no rights to move back in at short notice.
If it was a fixed lease situation she could not move in until the end of the lease and she had ye move out
In a Part IV situation she is well within her rights to give you notice to move out as it's written into law that a LL can end the lease legally if they need the house for themselves. The notice length depends on how long you've lived in the house

As you have no signed lease that states a fixed term (date the lease ends and you move out) then you'll have to argue you have a Part IV lease with her and she has to give you notice. Notice length depends on how long you were there -- a better phrase is how long she'll admit you lived there

Q: Did you ever get a letter from the PRTB saying she registered the tenancy. YOu can check this online but beware the records aren't updated properly. A direct email to the PRTB will get a definite answer but will take time.
If your not registered it is something you can use in the argument against her, it lets her open to a PRTB fine, but either way she will have one/all of ye out and herself moved back in no matter what you do.
If you threaten "you never registered us" all she has to do is pay the fee and register ye to make herself legal and then immediately hand you your notice.
If you do nothing she's in there anyway.

The "proper" legal answer is to talk to her, saying
1) you (honeymonster) are a Part IV tenant and she can't just move in on no notice
2) if the tenancy isn't registered you can try to use it as a lever to get her to keep out but it will only hold her off for so long.
3) Use the time to find a new house as she's going to get back in there, either now illegally (but maybe able to fudge the issue enough to get away with it) or legally after she gives you appropriate notice.
Either way she gets in and you are left with a poison atmosphere.
4) Report her to the PRTB and an email to the revenue stating whet you said to us would be no harm either, it's up to them if they want to investigate her, but cash-in-hand & no registering are flags to them usually.

The practical answer is jump straight to 3) maybe using 1) & 2) as levers to get her to give you a good reference for the next LL and when you have the new place report her.

the_syco

quietsailor wrote: »

Ahhh that's messy.

When you moved in it was an owner occupier and you took the room on that basis - that means you were, at that point, a licencee and basically had no rights AT ALL.

Once she moved out it SHOULD have become a Landlord & tenant relationship but you have no proof, no lease, no proof of rent paid

You have it the wrong way around, I think?

The Honey Monster wrote: »

Lad #3 moved out last week.

Landlady wants to move back into house but only informs me yesterday that she is doing so on this Thursday.

The Honey Monster wrote: »

Wants me out of the room I'm in and into a box room by then.

On this; is she giving you a reduction in the rent? how big a difference is there in room size?

Cuddlesworth

Whose name are the bills in? If they have always been in her name, then your going to have a hard time proving anything.

quietsailor

The Honey Monster wrote: »

When I moved in she said she had a room there but only used it from time to time...she used it a handful of times then rented it out to guy #3

the_syco wrote: »

You have it the wrong way around, I think?

I'm going on what Honeymonster said in the above quote - that she was using a room in the house when he first moved in so he& his housemates didn't have full use of the house.

That makes it an owner occupier + licencee situation rather than a LL/tenant situation

newacc2015

quietsailor wrote: »

I'm going on what Honeymonster said in the above quote - that she was using a room in the house when he first moved in so he& his housemates didn't have full use of the house.

That makes it an owner occupier + licencee situation rather than a LL/tenant situation

But if they have exclusive use of the house for 6 months, they are tenants and not licensees. Personally I would try to nail her in a text. Say something like "Its very unfair, that you are moving back into the house, when it was just us 3 for 6 months and now with little/no notice, Im being forced into the small room". If she acknowledges it was just you there for 6 months, I imagine you have a PRTB case

newacc2015

This actually raises an interesting question. In a house such as this and many more where rooms are let undividually to people and when someone moves out another random person is found to move in what's actually stopping the LL moving into the vacant room themselves rather than some random person?

newacc2015 wrote: »

But if they have exclusive use of the house for 6 months, they are tenants and not licensees.

It's not that straight forward. Rooms are let individually which means there is no exclusive use of the property. Each person has a room and shared access to the rest of the house but the people in the rooms can change at anytime outside of the ops control.

I think the biggest issue here is asking him to move room as that should be his exclusive area, what's happens in the rest of the house or who actually moves into another room really isn't something the op has a lot of say in.

campingcarist

Uriel Magnificent Peach wrote: »

This actually raises an interesting question. In a house such as this and many more where rooms are let undividually to people and when someone moves out another random person is found to move in what's actually stopping the LL moving into the vacant room themselves rather than some random person?

It's not that straight forward. Rooms are let individually which means there is no exclusive use of the property. Each person has a room and shared access to the rest of the house but the people in the rooms can change at anytime outside of the ops control.

I think the biggest issue here is asking him to move room as that should be his exclusive area, what's happens in the rest of the house or who actually moves into another room really isn't something the op has a lot of say in.

My understanding would be that if the property is tenanted (i.e. there was originally a lease (either joint or individual) that would indicate that the tenants have exclusive use of the property. Then if a landlord decided to move into the property, the landlord would then be in breach of his/her obligations by no allowing the tenants peaceful and exclusive use of the property.

If rooms are let individually, the tenants have exclusive use of their rooms and joint exclusive use of the rest of the property.
Just my understanding.

campingcarist

campingcarist wrote: »

My understanding would be that if the property is tenanted (i.e. there was originally a lease (either joint or individual) that would indicate that the tenants have exclusive use of the property. Then if a landlord decided to move into the property, the landlord would then be in breach of his/her obligations by no allowing the tenants peaceful and exclusive use of the property.

If rooms are let individually, the tenants have exclusive use of their rooms and joint exclusive use of the rest of the property.
Just my understanding.

By what the op has said I'd imagine their wasn't ever a lease. The place I live in currently (and the previous place) there was/is no lease or individual leases. People just move in, pay their deposit and pay their rent. If they want to leave its one months notice regardless of how long you have been living here. Since I've moved in both other rooms have changed tenant more than once, if the LL came along the next time one of the rooms is available and said he was moving in I would struggle to see a reason why he shouldn't be allowed to yet a random stranger can be moved in.

campingcarist

Uriel Magnificent Peach wrote: »

By what the op has said I'd imagine their wasn't ever a lease. The place I live in currently (and the previous place) there was/is no lease or individual leases. People just move in, pay their deposit and pay their rent. If they want to leave its one months notice regardless of how long you have been living here. Since I've moved in both other rooms have changed tenant more than once, if the LL came along the next time one of the rooms is available and said he was moving in I would struggle to see a reason why he shouldn't be allowed to yet a random stranger can be moved in.

Again, my understanding is that a lease may be written or oral. Unless explicitly stated that the letting is a licensee agreement and the landlord does not live in the property, the letting comes under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. Once there is a lease in place (the tenant pays his/her rent which is accepted by the landlord) the landlord may not enter the property without the permission of the tenant/s.

There cannot be a mixture of tenants and licensees because tenants have exclusive use of the property while a licensee does not.

I believe the same principle occurs in sub-lets where the head tenant moves out and his tenant has exclusive use. A property cannot be partly sub-let because the tenant would not have exclusive use. I think there is a reference to that in the Act.

But that is my understanding though I may well be incorrect.

ted1

If she had all the bedrooms rented out then as far as the taxman is concerned the propert was let fully and not covered under rent a room. Who wins the PRTB or tax man ?

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Hi all, thanks to everyone for their contributions, seems ye are all right and I've little or no rights when it comes to this. The homeowner came over this morning for her inspection, I was personally blamed for two things in the house, a chipped fireplace and a broken window, neither of which I'm responsible for. They were like that before I moved in or at least I never noticed them like that. I admitted to putting a tea towel in a window to stop a breeze coming in, but was blamed for breaking it!

Her words - "Looks like you went on a night out, forgot your keys and tried to break in, breaking the window frame" I said it didn't even make sense, I wouldn't even fit in it, she said "maybe you had a girl with you"...

That was the point at which I gave up! It just turned into arguing and shouting, her insisting I pay for damage and me insisting I didn't do it (neither did the other lad living with me).

Long and the short of it is that I'm moving in a week and my deposit is gone. Lesson learned, sign a contract, take photos of everything, trust your gut.

john.han

If I was you, once I'd moved out I'd be reporting her to revenue for the time all the bedrooms were occupied, might make her think twice about messing people around

The Moldy Gowl

Don't trust your gut after a night out and climbing in through windows with girls in tow.

4ensic15

campingcarist wrote: »

Again, my understanding is that a lease may be written or oral. Unless explicitly stated that the letting is a licensee agreement and the landlord does not live in the property, the letting comes under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. Once there is a lease in place (the tenant pays his/her rent which is accepted by the landlord) the landlord may not enter the property without the permission of the tenant/s.

There cannot be a mixture of tenants and licensees because tenants have exclusive use of the property while a licensee does not.

I believe the same principle occurs in sub-lets where the head tenant moves out and his tenant has exclusive use. A property cannot be partly sub-let because the tenant would not have exclusive use. I think there is a reference to that in the Act.

But that is my understanding though I may well be incorrect.

Whether a letting is a licence or a lease is to be determined on the facts and what it is described at on paper is not relevant. An owner occupier may hand a piece of paper described as a lease to his lodger but in fact it is a licence and conversely an non occupying landlord may give a piece of paper described as a licence to his tenant but it is in fact a lease. The PRTB have power to interpret agreements in order to determine their true nature.

newacc2015

Uriel Magnificent Peach wrote: »

This actually raises an interesting question. In a house such as this and many more where rooms are let undividually to people and when someone moves out another random person is found to move in what's actually stopping the LL moving into the vacant room themselves rather than some random person?



It's not that straight forward. Rooms are let individually which means there is no exclusive use of the property. Each person has a room and shared access to the rest of the house but the people in the rooms can change at anytime outside of the ops control.

I think the biggest issue here is asking him to move room as that should be his exclusive area, what's happens in the rest of the house or who actually moves into another room really isn't something the op has a lot of say in.

Someone on boards pulled a PRTB ruling, where the PRTB had the same view about not having exclusive use of the property. But they now believe even if its single room from the Landlord, you have the same rights as renting the entire property. If she wasnt there for 6 months, he is officially a tenant with part 4 and not a lodger

OP I would move out. The LL sounds like a wagon.

cerastes

newacc2015 wrote: »

Someone on boards pulled a PRTB ruling, where the PRTB had the same view about not having exclusive use of the property. But they now believe even if its single room from the Landlord, you have the same rights as renting the entire property. If she wasnt there for 6 months, he is officially a tenant with part 4 and not a lodger

OP I would move out. The LL sounds like a wagon.

You're saying if the landlord/lady lives there within a 6 month period then its a licensee situation. Surely they'd have to have a room in the house and be paying a share of bills too? Even if they didn't reside there at a minimum which would be an advantage to Antoine letting a room as be a quieter house and still lower bills. It sounds like the landlady should have just taken the boxroom.

TimeToShine

Don't move out until you have a new house or room secured.

Stop paying rent, tell her you're using the deposit to cover the additional time until you get sorted.

You are being screwed over so at the very least try and take care of yourself in the interim.