Tenant moves in boyfriend . . .

[5150]

Hi all,

Just some advice needed.

My (very good) tenant has kindly asked me if her boyfriend can move in at the end of Feb.

Just wondered if anyone had any experience of this. Is that grounds for increasing rent by a small amount? (Wear and tear etc.)

Would appreciate any advice or potential pitfalls.

Many thanks.
5150

[sherman]

I moved in with my girlfriend into her rented flat. I had been almost (3/4 days a week)living there for a year anyway before "officially" moving in. There has probably been a similar situation with your tennent. If you havent noticed any more wear and tear in that time why would you suddenly increase the rent now.

Would you increase the rent if she had had a baby?

[GT03ROB]

No. You let the house/flat as a whole, not on the basis of just one person being there.

I do concede you may have an issue if there were 6 in a 1 bed flat however!!

[craigdub]

Your "very good" tenant has done the decent thing and informed you. Why rock the boat with a minimal rent increase.

[Gaspode]

When my excellent tenant asked me if her boyfriend could move in with her, I readily agreed as the way I saw it, it would reduce the chance of her wanting to move out and live elsewhere.

[Driver101]

No.

It isn't unreasonable to expect a couple to live in a one bedroom flat or a family to live in a 3 bedroom house.

I've never seen the price reflective of how many people stay there.

[5150]

Great.

Many thanks for the advice.

I've passed on the good news. . . .

[gregf40]

You can do what you want.

...but the fact she bothered to ring you and ask makes her sound like a tenant sent from the Gods!

I would certainly keep it the same.

[Simpo Two]

Presumably they pay the utilities - they will go up.

[williamp]

Yes. Bills and council tax will go up. They might be able to get a bigger wheely bin.

Was she making hints that maybe you should remove the cctv from all the rooms??

[FrankAbagnale]

As a side note, this is fine when increasing from one to two but if anyone else is in the same situation and it is greater numbers, for example 3 to 4 you may find it becomes a HMO (house of multiple occupancy) and as such you'll need a licence - there can be fairly stiff fines if this is not obtained.

[Burrow01]

Is he going to be added to the tenancy agreement?

Your tenant sounds pretty good, but what happens if they split up, she wants to move out and he claims to have been living there and needs to be evicted

[UpTheIron]

FrankAbagnale said:

As a side note, this is fine when increasing from one to two but if anyone else is in the same situation and it is greater numbers, for example 3 to 4 you may find it becomes a HMO (house of multiple occupancy) and as such you'll need a licence - there can be fairly stiff fines if this is not obtained.

Not if you are letting the whole property as the OP is...

[FrankAbagnale]

UpTheIron said:

ot if you are letting the whole property as the OP is...

I don't follow 100%.

I thought that if there were several working professional "sharing" a house, owned by a vendor, then it would at some point become a HMO. For example, if a house was rented to two professional couples (four people) it would be a HMO.

In SODC if an entire house is rented to 3 tenants in two or more households (so basically, unrelated) it is a HMO. You need to licence the HMO if the building is 3 or more stories and occupied by 5 or more people - regardless of whether you are renting the whole property or individual rooms.

If the property is a HMO that doesn't require a licence you are still required to carry out a fire risk assessment and have extra fire safety precautions in place.

Edited by FrankAbagnale on Monday 12th January 14:33

[Maxf]

FrankAbagnale said:

I don't follow 100%.

I thought that if there were several working professional "sharing" a house, owned by a vendor, then it would at some point become a HMO. For example, if a house was rented to two professional couples (four people) it would be a HMO.

In SODC if an entire house is rented to 3 tenants in two or more households (so basically, unrelated) it is a HMO. You need to licence the HMO if the building is 3 or more stories and occupied by 5 or more people.

Edited by FrankAbagnale on Monday 12th January 14:27

They will all be on seperate leases in your scenarios. A couple (or family) wouldnt be.

[FrankAbagnale]

Maxf said:

They will all be on seperate leases in your scenarios. A couple (or family) wouldnt be.

A family wouldn't require a HMO as they are one household. If a couple were to join an existing couple in a house and be placed on one lease, it becomes a HMO. If they are on separate leases it is a HMO. You would need to licence the HMO if it is 5+ people in a 3 storey+ property regardless of if it is one lease, or five leases.

AFAIK the number of lease(s) doesn't define the HMO. It is the definition of "household" that is more important.

My scenario(s) have all been for more people than just a couple. Who you wouldn't need a HMO for regardless of whether they for one or two households.

Edited by FrankAbagnale on Monday 12th January 14:46

[aka_kerrly]

FrankAbagnale said:

A family wouldn't require a HMO as they are one household. If a couple were to join an existing couple in a house and be placed on one lease, it becomes a HMO. If they are on separate leases it is a HMO. You would need to licence the HMO if it is 5+ people in a 3 storey+ property regardless of if it is one lease, or five leases.

Usually it's the case that if all occupants share a common living room & kitchen plus toilet the property becomes a HMO. Think of the typical student house where 4 + people may have their own bedrooms but share the other facilities.

OP: Hang on to that tenant, keep them sweet I've heard far too many horror stories from clients who have BTLs.

[FrankAbagnale]

aka_kerrly said:

Usually it's the case that if all occupants share a common living room & kitchen plus toilet the property becomes a HMO. Think of the typical student house where 4 + people may have their own bedrooms but share the other facilities.

OP: Hang on to that tenant, keep them sweet I've heard far too many horror stories from clients who have BTLs.

Agreed, that is the main reason for a HMO - when a landlord rents individual rooms. But, it also extends to when a vendor rents a whole house to a group of people. Less common, but still appllicable.

But, i'll bow out at this point as it's going to far more detail than the thread requires. As stated in my OP, I made the comment as a side note in case anyone else was reading and thinking of increasing from say 3 to 4 people or 4 to 5 - it's something to be aware of and I have known people be fined for not knowing the rules.

[aka_kerrly]

FrankAbagnale said:

Agreed,

But, i'll bow out at this point as it's going to far more detail than the thread requires.

Good info though, no one ever complains if a thread has too much useful information in it!!

[TheHound]

Burrow01 said:

Is he going to be added to the tenancy agreement?

Your tenant sounds pretty good, but what happens if they split up, she wants to move out and he claims to have been living there and needs to be evicted

I would suggest you take up references on the new partner (you never know she may have fallen for a bad egg) and then add him to the Tenancy as a Permitted Occupier if he checks out but not as a Tenant. There are several implications if he is added as a tenant, one of them being the need to re-protect the deposit in both names and accordingly, re-issue prescribed Information.


BTW FrankAbagnale is Correct in his definition of HMOs