Evicting a lodger

dennyk

Legally speaking, this person is a lodger, not a tenant, and would not have the statutory tenant's rights which are granted by the Residential Tenancies Act, regardless of what any agreement she signed says about her legal status. However, if you have signed an agreement with her regarding her right to live in the property, she can generally hold you to the terms of that agreement, provided they don't conflict with any applicable laws. An agreement cannot make her a legally defined "tenant" covered by the RTA, but if your agreement has explicitly granted her rights such as a fixed term of six months and specific notice periods required for correcting a breach of terms such as non-payment of rent, then that agreement will govern your contractual relationship with her and you'll have to abide by the agreed terms. If you don't, while she wouldn't be able to go to the RTB to file a complaint against you (as she'd have no standing, being a licensee in fact rather than a covered tenant), she could sue you in court for breach of contract and potentially win a judgement for damages against you there.

The other potential issue you have is that after she has been in the property for six months, she can apply to the landlord to become a tenant of the property in fact, and the landlord cannot unreasonably deny her request. You'd have no say in the matter at that point, I'm afraid; your permission isn't required for your licensee to become a tenant after living there for at least six months, only the landlord's. Unless your agreement explicitly provides an option for you to terminate her stay before the fixed six-month term ends, or she remains in arrears long enough for you to actually issue the 28-day notice to vacate as per the terms of your agreement, you may be stuck with her as a housemate for the foreseeable future.

davindub

dennyk wrote: »

Legally speaking, this person is a lodger, not a tenant, and would not have the statutory tenant's rights which are granted by the Residential Tenancies Act, regardless of what any agreement she signed says about her legal status. However, if you have signed an agreement with her regarding her right to live in the property, she can generally hold you to the terms of that agreement, provided they don't conflict with any applicable laws. An agreement cannot make her a legally defined "tenant" covered by the RTA, but if your agreement has explicitly granted her rights such as a fixed term of six months and specific notice periods required for correcting a breach of terms such as non-payment of rent, then that agreement will govern your contractual relationship with her and you'll have to abide by the agreed terms. If you don't, while she wouldn't be able to go to the RTB to file a complaint against you (as she'd have no standing, being a licensee in fact rather than a covered tenant), she could sue you in court for breach of contract and potentially win a judgement for damages against you there.

The other potential issue you have is that after she has been in the property for six months, she can apply to the landlord to become a tenant of the property in fact, and the landlord cannot unreasonably deny her request. You'd have no say in the matter at that point, I'm afraid; your permission isn't required for your licensee to become a tenant after living there for at least six months, only the landlord's. Unless your agreement explicitly provides an option for you to terminate her stay before the fixed six-month term ends, or she remains in arrears long enough for you to actually issue the 28-day notice to vacate as per the terms of your agreement, you may be stuck with her as a housemate for the foreseeable future.

I would say this is a fairly accurate answer.

Just one thing from memory, the district court never did enforce contract durations on either party when dealing with license's, just reasonable notice to be given.

I would second the view that "no rights" under the RTA acts does not mean no legal remedies if the contract were terminated by the landlord without reasonable notice.

However, given that rent has not been paid and other details, I couldn't see any issue with asking her to leave within a few days unless rent is paid.

Marcusm

listermint wrote: »

He is not the owner of the property.


this person is a lodger

this person can be removed, she doesnt have a leg to stand on. Put her stuff on the kerb. She has no agreement with the landlord the landlords name is not on any documentation. The landlord signed nothing. It doesnt matter if there was verbal permission of a sublet. There is nothing written down.


She can be treated as a lodger because she is.

She doesn’t have any entitlements under RTA but is likely entitled to enforce whatever rights he (inadvisably) included in the “tenancy” agreement!

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

Marcusm wrote: »

She doesn’t have any entitlements under RTA but is likely entitled to enforce whatever rights he (inadvisably) included in the “tenancy” agreement!

I disagree. The OP could not contract anything as landlord as he is not the landlord. The whole agreement is invalid including that which would give any contract rights. How could the OP contract as a landlord when he is not and invoking the legislation which appies to landlords?

endacl

Marcusm wrote: »

She doesn’t have any entitlements under RTA but is likely entitled to enforce whatever rights he (inadvisably) included in the “tenancy” agreement!

She doesn’t have any. The agreement has no more standing than one I could type up agreeing to let Mickey Mouse live in your gaff.

Marcusm

Cesar Fresh Cannabis wrote: »

I disagree. The OP could not contract anything as landlord as he is not the landlord. The whole agreement is invalid including that which would give any contract rights. How could the OP contract as a landlord when he is not and invoking the legislation which appies to landlords?

endacl wrote: »

She doesn’t have any. The agreement has no more standing than one I could type up agreeing to let Mickey Mouse live in your gaff.

The tenant can be bound against the sub tenant under the written terms agreed between them irrespective of the rights against the actual landlord. Breach of these might give rise to monetary compensation (damages) rather than continued occupation (specific performance).

The issue is that the tenant, acting with the agreement of the landlord it seeems, has given the “lodger” more rights than would naturally accrue.

Larbre34

Fair point, they may well have.

But I would still put her out and let her take on the burden of pursuing it through the system. If she hasn't been paying her rent, then she knows she's on a hiding to nothing. And frankly I doubt this is her first rodeo.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

Marcusm wrote: »

The tenant can be bound against the sub tenant under the written terms agreed between them irrespective of the rights against the actual landlord. Breach of these might give rise to monetary compensation (damages) rather than continued occupation (specific performance).

The issue is that the tenant, acting with the agreement of the landlord it seeems, has given the “lodger” more rights than would naturally accrue.

The agreement is worthless the op is not the landlord so could not contract as the landlord

Samuel T. Cogley

Cesar Fresh Cannabis wrote: »

The agreement is worthless the op is not the landlord so could not contract as the landlord

No it's not as was explained.

Caranica

OP hasn't been back on in almost a week. Hope it's sorted by now!

punisher5112

Caranica wrote: »

OP hasn't been back on in almost a week. Hope it's sorted by now!

The lodger turfed the op out ???