'Lodger' stressing me out

[pollyerrington]

Hi, I've recently taken on a lodger. Lodger being the ultimate word - I was hoping for less of a housemate, and more of someone that keeps themselves to themselves.

When I interviewed him he mentioned having a TV in his room and a big comfy chair - great I thought, he'll definitely be in his room mostly.

EVERY night he's in my small sitting room. And he's been using my throw without asking me - so I felt I had to get him one to stop him using mine. I came home to him wrapped up in it watching sports on tv. He didn't once ask if I'd like to watch something else.

He makes tea every 20 minutes and uses multiple mugs - and leaves them on the side unwashed.
The worst thing though is that he sits in the sitting room and eats his food and does it with his mouth open. It makes me want to leave the room, the noise is honestly so horrible, and then he slurps his tea.

I had a date night the other night (clearly said it a couple of times) but he stayed in the sitting room whilst we had our date night!

I want to talk to him later to explain that I advertised for a lodger, not a housemate, and that I'd like him in the sitting room less.

Is that fair? and how do I go about saying it?! I don't want to be passive aggressive....
TIA.

"The worst thing though is that he sits in the sitting room and eats his food and does it with his mouth open."

Am curious to whether your kitchen has an eating area, OP, (or if indeed you have a separate dining room).

I am curious because it is clear from a lot of posts that it is an accepted norm to allow a lodger use of their own room and shared use of a kitchen and bathroom, while excluding use of any other rooms, but I am wondering where they are meant to eat?

Do people who have lodgers generally have (at the very least) an eating area in the kitchen or, if not, where would they eat?
(Oh dear ... I'm imagining the answer might be "in their bedroom" ... but surely not!)

No he doesn’t have every right to use the sitting room. It’s not specified as a common room in the contract

Op didn't mention specifying 'common rooms' in the contract. Only a bedroom and full use of the kitchen. Does that mean their is partial use of some rooms, which rooms? Does it specify bathroom and if not can it be assumed that lodger has access to bathroom? Which means it might be assumed he has use of the living room. Is it assumed he has to eat in his bedroom and is that actually legal, considering its probably not a bedsit.

And of course OP has allowed him access to the living room multiple times, so it would be hard to argue he is breaking a rule. The main issue is eating with excess noise, using a blanket without permission and making to much tea.

Well then you should have seen that her contract specified the rooms he had use of. Also being a lodger with a resident landlord does differentiate legally from a houseshare.

Penngyyn I think that is common with Landlords/Landladies, which is why most renters avoid lodging.

Unfair, it's his home too. Maybe you would get on better with a Monday to Friday lodger?

Just talk to him.
Tell him you want to sit in your sitting room and watch what you want and that he has his own room.

Tell him to wash his mugs and to use the same bloody one during the day like most people.

I had a friend who was a lodger in someone's home when she was a student ( back in the 80s) and her landlady put a curtain up across the entire middle of the living room. my friend would often be in her half watching Corrie and the landlady would be on the other side of the curtain watching the same thing - or something different.

OP you could do the same?

Well then you should have seen that her contract specified the rooms he had use of The landlord gave the lodger permission to use the living room and encouraged it by buying lodger a throw to use in it.

Op has also admitted the bedroom is the same size as the small living room but hasn't specified if the kitchen is big enough to sit down and eat a meal.

If op doesn't like it evict him, and next time write a better agreement and stick to it.

The OP can rent out whichever space she likes, her lodger only has the right to the full or partial use of whichever rooms are specified in the contract, which in this case does not include the sitting room although she does have to provide access to a bathroom so I think she missed that out in her second post.

With this lodger I'd give him notice to leave as soon as possible. It sounds like he will take whatever he can and even if you get him to revisit his contract and keep out of your sitting room I think it may be stressful having him in the house if he is difficult to talk to. Then take a good look at your contract and make it a bit more specific about house rules. For example it might be better to limit the use of the kitchen to specific times, or to require washing up to be done within a sensible time frame (ie every evening).

Not sure why it's such a big deal to eat a meal in a bedroom, so long as the bedroom is a decent size, which in this can it appears to be. I think the issue is that the OP has had lodgers who didn't take the piss in the past so she didn't think she'd have to police her living room.

Lodging is not the same as a housemate, it means you have a room and limited use of everything else. Which is why it is a cheap option.

Dangermouse and the other posters are wrong. The lodgers usable spaces are those defined at the outset by the resident owner. In my case bedroom, bathroom, shared kitchen/diner and garden. If a potential lodger doesn't like it then I presume they will not lodge with me. What is all the rubbish implying that there will be some kind of greedy money sucking abuse of vulnerable lodgers going on. I see it as mutually beneficial arrangement.

BUT the OP has already given use of the lounge to her lodger.

So she has set the precedent.

Are you not getting that @raininsummer ???

And yeah, as someone asked earlier, where the feck is the lodger meant to eat and relax? In his bedroom? There are some odd folk on here! If you don't like company and don't like people, don't have fecking lodgers!

Of course I get that Danger. You were misquoting CAB guidance in general. Not wanting a lodger in your family space every night does not mean you don't like people etc. Personally I wouldn't want to sit in a landlady's living room and would rather be in my own room. I imagine being a lodger wouldn't suit you.

I misunderstood one paragraph and I acknowledged it very quickly. No need to bang on about it and milk it. Get over it FFS!

The OP has already let the lodger USE her lounge, so she has set the precedent.

And what business is it of yours whether it would suit ME being a lodger?

It is still early days by the sounds of it and boundaries are still being set, OP has felt unable to challenge him on his behaviour but that doesn't amount to her giving him free access to the living room. She is fully entitled to enforce the contract and given his lack of consideration I would just make the living room completely off bounds from now on. Occasional use might work for people who are polite, thoughtful and know when to clear off but that doesn't sound like this man.

I don't see why people are trying to create rules that don't exist. It's up to the person letting the room, to decide which areas are accessible. When I had a lodger it was cool for her to eat her dinner in the kitchen. No need to eat in sitting room is there? I don't even eat in sitting room. Why would a sitting room even be a designated eating space?

Some people are being obtuse in pretending that letting out a room is the same as letting out a flat. If sitting room isn't available then it isn't, it's landlord's business not anybody else's.

A lodger who doesn't want that can go rent a flat as opposed to a room, or somewhere use of sitting room is included. He can't dictate that he wants more than room and amenities if that's what's on offer.

In OPs case she wasn't clear, and is also allowing herself to be intimidated. She can give 28 days Notice to Quit which is kind enough - as he's lodger on same premises she isn't even required to give that, just that 28 days is nice. & no amount of thinking you can create and apply non-existent "rules" can change that.

None really but you seem very agitated about these poor abused lodgers with hateful landlords. You are presuming a lot. My lodger won't have to eat in his bedroom and I don't eat in my sitting room either. He is welcome to eat with us but I won't feel its my home any more if I come in and some bloke has football on my TV and his feet on my coffee table. Anyway the ops problem appears to have stemmed from an unclear contract initially.

If you don't want to feel 'it's not your home anymore,' don't have a lodger!

Oh my god. I would hate that. Nightmare.

Can you get rid of him?

Danger don't be ridiculous.

the ops problem appears to have stemmed from an unclear contract initially

Partly yes, but mostly because OP has allowed it to happen, has never said anything, sat in the room watching the TV with him, even bought him a throw to snuggle up and be cozy while watching the TV. If I was a lodger i would assume the landlady was very happy with me in the living room.