Deposit wasnt protected.
Discussion
superlightr said:
calling someone a lodger does not necessary make them one. It will be presumed to be an AST unless stated otherwise and shown to be otherwise.
so what does your agreement say on the front page? does it say it is an AST?
Do you have sole use of the property you are renting ie kitchen, bathroom, bedroom and can lock your door?
How are the utilities paid?
These will give an indication if you have sole use and its self-contained which it needs to be to be an AST.
Some of it yes, but not all. so what does your agreement say on the front page? does it say it is an AST?
Do you have sole use of the property you are renting ie kitchen, bathroom, bedroom and can lock your door?
How are the utilities paid?
These will give an indication if you have sole use and its self-contained which it needs to be to be an AST.
It doesn't matter what the tenancy agreement says on it; there are certain conditions which define the type of tenancy it can be. Even if the TA says that it's an AST, it is NOT an AST with a resident landlord since the Housing Act 1988 specifically excludes this. If the landlord lives there, it is NOT an AST; if he doesn't live there it is. That includes HMOs so having or not having sole use of kitchen and bathroom may not define if it's an AST or not.
If the landlord lives in the same property, they don't necessarily have to share facilities with their tenants in which case it would be a tenancy with basic protection but still not an AST.
Even excluded tenants can and should have locks on their doors; locks on doors give no indication to the type of tenancy.
QuickQuack said:
superlightr said:
calling someone a lodger does not necessary make them one. It will be presumed to be an AST unless stated otherwise and shown to be otherwise.
so what does your agreement say on the front page? does it say it is an AST?
Do you have sole use of the property you are renting ie kitchen, bathroom, bedroom and can lock your door?
How are the utilities paid?
These will give an indication if you have sole use and its self-contained which it needs to be to be an AST.
Some of it yes, but not all. so what does your agreement say on the front page? does it say it is an AST?
Do you have sole use of the property you are renting ie kitchen, bathroom, bedroom and can lock your door?
How are the utilities paid?
These will give an indication if you have sole use and its self-contained which it needs to be to be an AST.
It doesn't matter what the tenancy agreement says on it; there are certain conditions which define the type of tenancy it can be. Even if the TA says that it's an AST, it is NOT an AST with a resident landlord since the Housing Act 1988 specifically excludes this. If the landlord lives there, it is NOT an AST; if he doesn't live there it is. That includes HMOs so having or not having sole use of kitchen and bathroom may not define if it's an AST or not.
If the landlord lives in the same property, they don't necessarily have to share facilities with their tenants in which case it would be a tenancy with basic protection but still not an AST.
Even excluded tenants can and should have locks on their doors; locks on doors give no indication to the type of tenancy.
The pointers will be looked at to give a view as to what type of arrangement has been set up and as I understand it will be utilities/sole use of things/locks etc they are pointers not definitive answers.
superlightr said:
its complicated for sure as to the definition as a landlord living there- Living in the same property - that's the key. If its completely self contained ie an annex then it can be an AST or a flat. A landlord may let out flats in a block or building and still live in another flat under the same roof but still be an AST.
Agreed 
Come on OP, what precisely are your circumstances? We would like to help but you need to help us understand your arrangements before we can help.
Red Devil said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Ah, the drip-drip-drip of pertinent information...
By no means unusual on here. 
Thats just it... as far as im aware i have my own tenancy i have a shared communal area with other tenants but we're all on separate tenancies with fees accordingly. At the start of the tenancy the LL did live in the annexe but after he dismantled the bathroom (18 months ago) after we complained about bare eletrics on the shower we've all been using his annex facilities. Now i know i probably should have done something but i would rather a roof over my head than not. it may be incredibly naive on my part but as ive a tenancy agreement surely that makes me a tenant and not a lodger especially when its an agreement between myself and him no? All i want is to know where i stand if at all.
V40Vinnie said:
Thats just it... as far as im aware i have my own tenancy i have a shared communal area with other tenants but we're all on separate tenancies with fees accordingly. At the start of the tenancy the LL did live in the annexe but after he dismantled the bathroom (18 months ago) after we complained about bare eletrics on the shower we've all been using his annex facilities. Now i know i probably should have done something but i would rather a roof over my head than not. it may be incredibly naive on my part but as ive a tenancy agreement surely that makes me a tenant and not a lodger especially when its an agreement between myself and him no? All i want is to know where i stand if at all.
Sorry but i am a tad confused.what do you mean by "as far as im aware i have my own tenancy" & "ive a tenancy agreement" ?What form of agreement is it?.............maybe I am missing something but it sounds like you are a lodger to me.
If you pay rent, and if you have any amount of your own specific space which is yours and yours alone (e.g. your own room which cannot be changed by someone else), you are a tenant. That holds true even if you share some of the space and facilities with someone else including the landlord. A paying lodger is just a type of tenant. All such lodgers are tenants but not all tenants are lodgers. There are many different types of tenants and the type of tenancy you have determines your legal rights and obligations, how the tenancy can be terminated and so on. You would only not be a tenant if you're not paying rent and/or your room can be changed at will such that you don't have any specific space of your own.
I'm really sorry for you but it's bad news I'm afraid
If you're sharing the same bathroom with your landlord, then unfortunately you're an "excluded tenant" meaning that you have no real protection at all. As an excluded tenant, the notice you need to be given to terminate the tenancy is dependent on your payment period. If you pay your rent weekly, the landlord only has to give 1 week's notice. If you pay it fortnightly, they need to give you a fortnight's notice, if you pay it monthly, a month's notice and so on. The notice doesn't have to be in writing, a verbal notice is sufficient, and at the end of the notice period, the landlord can simply change the locks and leave you out in the cold, and it is completely legal. All they need to do is return your posessions. The landlord doesn't need to put your deposit into a protected scheme either so can't be held liable for not protecting it. If the landlord earns less than £7,500/year from letting rooms in their home, then they don't pay any tax on it either so depending on how much you pay, he might well be within the law in that regard too.
I'm really sorry for you but it's bad news I'm afraid
If you're sharing the same bathroom with your landlord, then unfortunately you're an "excluded tenant" meaning that you have no real protection at all. As an excluded tenant, the notice you need to be given to terminate the tenancy is dependent on your payment period. If you pay your rent weekly, the landlord only has to give 1 week's notice. If you pay it fortnightly, they need to give you a fortnight's notice, if you pay it monthly, a month's notice and so on. The notice doesn't have to be in writing, a verbal notice is sufficient, and at the end of the notice period, the landlord can simply change the locks and leave you out in the cold, and it is completely legal. All they need to do is return your posessions. The landlord doesn't need to put your deposit into a protected scheme either so can't be held liable for not protecting it. If the landlord earns less than £7,500/year from letting rooms in their home, then they don't pay any tax on it either so depending on how much you pay, he might well be within the law in that regard too. 2Btoo said:
As has been said, yes you are a tenant. The question is what type of tenant - a lodger or a tenant with an AST.
From what you've said you may have started off as one but changed to the other. Can you give any more detail of your landlord living or not living there?
He can't be a tenant with an AST with the landlord living in the same house. He's either an excluded tenant or a tenant with basic protection. The fact that they're sharing the bathroom with the landlord means that it's a single property that the landlord and all the tenants live in, and also that the tenants are all excluded tenants.From what you've said you may have started off as one but changed to the other. Can you give any more detail of your landlord living or not living there?
QuickQuack said:
If you pay rent, and if you have any amount of your own specific space which is yours and yours alone (e.g. your own room which cannot be changed by someone else), you are a tenant. That holds true even if you share some of the space and facilities with someone else including the landlord. A paying lodger is just a type of tenant. All such lodgers are tenants but not all tenants are lodgers. There are many different types of tenants and the type of tenancy you have determines your legal rights and obligations, how the tenancy can be terminated and so on. You would only not be a tenant if you're not paying rent and/or your room can be changed at will such that you don't have any specific space of your own.
I'm really sorry for you but it's bad news I'm afraid If you're sharing the same bathroom with your landlord, then unfortunately you're an "excluded tenant" meaning that you have no real protection at all. As an excluded tenant, the notice you need to be given to terminate the tenancy is dependent on your payment period. If you pay your rent weekly, the landlord only has to give 1 week's notice. If you pay it fortnightly, they need to give you a fortnight's notice, if you pay it monthly, a month's notice and so on. The notice doesn't have to be in writing, a verbal notice is sufficient, and at the end of the notice period, the landlord can simply change the locks and leave you out in the cold, and it is completely legal. All they need to do is return your posessions. The landlord doesn't need to put your deposit into a protected scheme either so can't be held liable for not protecting it. If the landlord earns less than £7,500/year from letting rooms in their home, then they don't pay any tax on it either so depending on how much you pay, he might well be within the law in that regard too.
Thats what i needed to know, I have an own space but share communal facilities with the LL, why on earth he would protect later deposits but not mine i dont know (word of mouth) the issue i had was with deposits and more specifically if failing to protect it voided the right to withold part/all at the end of the agreement I'm really sorry for you but it's bad news I'm afraid
If you're sharing the same bathroom with your landlord, then unfortunately you're an "excluded tenant" meaning that you have no real protection at all. As an excluded tenant, the notice you need to be given to terminate the tenancy is dependent on your payment period. If you pay your rent weekly, the landlord only has to give 1 week's notice. If you pay it fortnightly, they need to give you a fortnight's notice, if you pay it monthly, a month's notice and so on. The notice doesn't have to be in writing, a verbal notice is sufficient, and at the end of the notice period, the landlord can simply change the locks and leave you out in the cold, and it is completely legal. All they need to do is return your posessions. The landlord doesn't need to put your deposit into a protected scheme either so can't be held liable for not protecting it. If the landlord earns less than £7,500/year from letting rooms in their home, then they don't pay any tax on it either so depending on how much you pay, he might well be within the law in that regard too. QuickQuack said:
He can't be a tenant with an AST with the landlord living in the same house. He's either an excluded tenant or a tenant with basic protection. The fact that they're sharing the bathroom with the landlord means that it's a single property that the landlord and all the tenants live in, and also that the tenants are all excluded tenants.
It's not clear that the OP isn't on an AST; the shared bathroom is the landlord's and is in a separate part of the property. If the OP has lived there from before the let property's bathroom was dismantled and the tenants began using the alternative then he would appear to have not been cohabiting with the LL and would have rights; the LL being a wannabe rachman who wantonly exposes his tenants to dangerous electrics and forces the use of 'temporary' washing facilities for months is neither here nor there.V40Vinnie said:
Thats what i needed to know, I have an own space but share communal facilities with the LL, why on earth he would protect later deposits but not mine i dont know (word of mouth) the issue i had was with deposits and more specifically if failing to protect it voided the right to withold part/all at the end of the agreement
"He doesn't have to" doesn't mean that he can't; it just means it's up to him whether to protect the deposit or not. Technically, even in an Assured Shorthold Tenancy (a specific type of tenancy and cannot apply if the landlord is living in the same property), not protecting the deposit doesn't mean the landlord can't make deductions if there's damage, just that the compensation due to the tenant would be so much that it would wipe out any deductions which could be made from the deposit. However, from what you have been describing, he always lived in the same property, so that doesn't apply to you or the other tenants, whether their deposits were "protected" or not.
hidetheelephants said:
It's not clear that the OP isn't on an AST; the shared bathroom is the landlord's and is in a separate part of the property. If the OP has lived there from before the let property's bathroom was dismantled and the tenants began using the alternative then he would appear to have not been cohabiting with the LL and would have rights; the LL being a wannabe rachman who wantonly exposes his tenants to dangerous electrics and forces the use of 'temporary' washing facilities for months is neither here nor there.
I agree that the landlord seems to far from one's definition of a good LL but since the OP mentioned the live in LL, everything he has said points to the LL living in the same property. Besides, what may start as one type of tenancy can convert to another if circumstances change. If the OP shares common facilities with the LL and has been for months, it cannot be an AST even if it had started out as one, but even that's doubtful. The LL living in the annexe of the house, which is how the tenancy started by the OP's description, is pretty much the precise setting for a "tenant with basic protection" and not an AST. When they then start sharing facilities, it converts to an "excluded tenancy." Look them up if you don't believe me.superlightr said:
TooMany2cvs said:
superlightr said:
has he also given you notice to leave?
<chuckles><chorus> Oh, no, he hasn't...
This could become quite amusing if he's planning to try to tie exchange (or even completion... oh, please...) into the expiry of the s21...
it amazes me that some landlords are still really that ignorant. DIY letting what possible could go wrong eh?
t some letting agents are when you pay them to provide a service.QuickQuack said:
V40Vinnie said:
Thats what i needed to know, I have an own space but share communal facilities with the LL, why on earth he would protect later deposits but not mine i dont know (word of mouth) the issue i had was with deposits and more specifically if failing to protect it voided the right to withold part/all at the end of the agreement
"He doesn't have to" doesn't mean that he can't; it just means it's up to him whether to protect the deposit or not. Technically, even in an Assured Shorthold Tenancy (a specific type of tenancy and cannot apply if the landlord is living in the same property), not protecting the deposit doesn't mean the landlord can't make deductions if there's damage, just that the compensation due to the tenant would be so much that it would wipe out any deductions which could be made from the deposit. However, from what you have been describing, he always lived in the same property, so that doesn't apply to you or the other tenants, whether their deposits were "protected" or not.
hidetheelephants said:
It's not clear that the OP isn't on an AST; the shared bathroom is the landlord's and is in a separate part of the property. If the OP has lived there from before the let property's bathroom was dismantled and the tenants began using the alternative then he would appear to have not been cohabiting with the LL and would have rights; the LL being a wannabe rachman who wantonly exposes his tenants to dangerous electrics and forces the use of 'temporary' washing facilities for months is neither here nor there.
I agree that the landlord seems to far from one's definition of a good LL but since the OP mentioned the live in LL, everything he has said points to the LL living in the same property. Besides, what may start as one type of tenancy can convert to another if circumstances change. If the OP shares common facilities with the LL and has been for months, it cannot be an AST even if it had started out as one, but even that's doubtful. The LL living in the annexe of the house, which is how the tenancy started by the OP's description, is pretty much the precise setting for a "tenant with basic protection" and not an AST. When they then start sharing facilities, it converts to an "excluded tenancy." Look them up if you don't believe me.Just because an amateur, or a devious, LL writes something on a piece of paper doesn't make it so.
If push comes to shove it will be a matter for a judge to decide.
OP, have a look at these links.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/50/secti...
http://www.letlink.co.uk/2016-01-21-12-29-33/disre...
98elise said:
superlightr said:
TooMany2cvs said:
superlightr said:
has he also given you notice to leave?
<chuckles><chorus> Oh, no, he hasn't...
This could become quite amusing if he's planning to try to tie exchange (or even completion... oh, please...) into the expiry of the s21...
it amazes me that some landlords are still really that ignorant. DIY letting what possible could go wrong eh?
t some letting agents are when you pay them to provide a service.Find one that does have a good reputation and has been established for many years is a good start. You also have recompense as they all have to belong to a professional redress body.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff