Houseshare problems - tenant's new boyfriend refuses to leave

[FirstAvenue]

Name changed, looking for advice here. I'll try not to go into too much detail.

I own a five bedroom house in a town a fair distance away and I let out four bedrooms under Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreements. It's an all female house as I have found that way it is generally easier to manage from a distance.

I do everything as professionally as possible, I advertise empty rooms, take references from applicants, tell them the house rules and give the tenants a proper tenancy agreement which states that they have exclusive use of their bedroom and shared use of the communal areas.

One of the House rules states: "Your room is for single occupancy only and boyfriends / girlfriends etc. should only really stay every other weekend." Now it's not that I am a prude, it's just that I have learnt from previous bad experiences that the house becomes overcrowded and untidy and generally starts to smell if the house is over-occupied. It's very hard to let a room if the house smells.

One of the girls, let's call her Ann, got a new boyfriend about six months ago and recently he appears to have "moved in". She says he has not and that she is aware of the house rules, but he is "always there" despite him living nearby. Unfortunately it is not just a case of staying in her room, he seems to spend most of the time watching TV in the living room and has even set his laptop up in the kitchen.

One of the other girls, let's call her Betsy, has complained about his continued presence. Betsy says that she took the house on the basis that it was girls only, and that she feels uncomfortable with him being in the house all the time in his dressing gown.

I've asked Ann to stick to the house rules and to make sure he only stays ever other weekend, and she has at various times in the last two weeks a) denied that he stays there in the week, b) says he does stay over sometimes but the other girls don't mind, or c) says that he is her partner and she wants him to stay as much as possible. It is clear that she is not telling the truth.

Betsy however made a further formal complaint to me last Tuesday, and after a number of texts and phone calls to Ann during which time the boyfriend did not depart, last Friday I had to write an email to Ann asking her to make sure that house rules are obeyed and that her boyfriend only stays two nights a fortnight. I did not get a reply.

Betsy went away for the weekend but when she arrived back last night the boyfriend was there and he was still there this morning. She is now dreading going back home this evening, and it is my understanding that he has now stayed there for 11 consecutive nights. Betsy is now asking me what she should do if he is still there this evening.

Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to resolve this?

Betsy wants to get a grip and mind her own business.

@SakuraEdenSwan1 It is her business as she's had to put up with being 'space invaded' by a man when that was not part of what she signed up for when she took on the room- quite the opposite.

@GreenlandTheMovie -

The lease is joint and several, so presumably she has signed a joint lease with named Co-tenants.

No, if you reread the OP, she says she gave the tenants 'a proper tenancy agreement which states that they have exclusive use of their bedroom and shared use of the communal areas.'

These are four tenants with four separate assured shorthold tenancies. Which is good because if it was a joint tenancy, the only way OP could evict Ann is if she evicted all of them.

The local authority also has powers to close an illegally operating hmo and to effectively cause the eviction of all tenants. I wonder whether it might actually move things along to get the hmo unit involved to visit the property to investigate.

This may or may not be an illegally operating HMO. If the property is somewhere that requires licencing for 3 or more tenants, and OP does not have a licence, then getting the HMO unit involved will certainly move things along!

The LA won't close it down and make the tenants homeless, however they may prosecute her or impose a civil penalty of up to £30,000. Also each of her tenants can apply for a rent repayment order to claim back up to 12 months rent. If any of them claim benefits towards rent (HB or UC), the local authority can themselves apply for a rent repayment order to get that money back.

As a last resort, the local authority has powers to take over the management of the property and apply for an order banning OP from renting out property for at least 12 months (no upper time limit). If she gets a banning order she will also be added to the national database of rogue landlords and agents.

OP Please check the HMO licencing rules in your local authority before you do anything else

If you're supposed to have a licence you will need to put in a valid application before you can serve a S21 but you can serve notice as soon as your application is accepted, you don't need to wait for the licence to be granted.

May I pose two hypothetical situations? First, that the owner retains a nominal residence, by keeping her belongings in one of the rooms, and occasionally staying overnight, to monitor what is happening. In that case would she have resident landlady rights, especially if she had registered that house, or her solicitor, (not her alternative residence,) as her address for service of legal documents, etc. ?

Secondly, a house deliberately dedicated to escapees and survivors of domestic abuse by men, routinely excludes men, even as 'invitees'. Managing such a property will probably involve making efforts to get women plumbers etc., if necessary, and failing that, to take care to warn the women a man, escorted, would enter the premises, unavoidably. The women who seek out other women-only spaces of any sort, but above all as a secure place to live, may have their own, important, reasons.

If a shared-house contract can not enforce the women-only clause, then that is all the more reason to add wording of 'a woman's home' into the Domestic Abuse Bill. (Currently, protection is defined not by the fact DA is inside the home, but only the fact it is, in or out of the home, carried out by a current or ex partner)

Please will somebody somewhere ask for that minor tweak to definition? The whole steamroller of the Domestic Abuse movement is hell bent on ignoring the excluded women, trapped with strange men in shared accommodation.

(Betsy, in this case, is being made very uncomfortable by a man resident in the shared areas, in his underpants. She and the other women need enforceable protection from the 'invitee'. They need it from the landlady. More importantly, they need to be accepted as existing, and their risk of abuse needs to be accepted as existing, by the forthcoming Domestic Abuse Bill.

He has not (as far as we know) abused his g.f. or another woman, (yet, those underpants are a threat of sorts, and would prevent Betsy using the kitchen at all, if she had been easily triggered) It's a small step from underpants to 'accidental' exposure, or from sitting round the kitchen all day to 'accidentally' leaning close to reach a cup, or 'accidentally' bursting into a bathroom, or getting up in the night and 'accidentally' returning to the wrong bedroom, and later declaring it was by invitation, or lurking in the bathroom to grab. Again, once inside the home, and if neither police nor landlady can get him to leave, it would be his word against his victim's, who would either be said to be a lying fantasist, or else be said to have met him by assignation. Since this was not his official partner, it would not be Domestic Abuse.)

He has not (as far as we know) abused his g.f. or another woman, (yet, those underpants are a threat of sorts, and would prevent Betsy using the kitchen at all, if she had been easily triggered)

I agree - and any decent, respectful man wouldn't even think of doing this in shared accommodation - especially as he must be well aware that at least one of the other tenants finds his undressed state embarrassing/ threatening/ unpleasant. He is revelling in this. He's doing it because he can.

First, that the owner retains a nominal residence, by keeping her belongings in one of the rooms, and occasionally staying overnight, to monitor what is happening. In that case would she have resident landlady rights, especially if she had registered that house, or her solicitor, (not her alternative residence,) as her address for service of legal documents, etc. ?

Do you mean would that make the tenants into lodgers? No, it wouldn't. Assured shorthold tenancies can only be ended by the tenant or by the court. Also this would mean there was a fifth person living in the property. There is an exemption from mandatory HMO licencing for resident landlords with up to two tenants or lodgers, but OP has four. All HMOs with five residents must be licenced.

Secondly, a house deliberately dedicated to escapees and survivors of domestic abuse by men, routinely excludes men, even as 'invitees'. Managing such a property will probably involve making efforts to get women plumbers etc., if necessary, and failing that, to take care to warn the women a man, escorted, would enter the premises, unavoidably. The women who seek out other women-only spaces of any sort, but above all as a secure place to live, may have their own, important, reasons.

The single sex exception used by refuges etc. is in the part of the EA that deals with the provision of services. A refuge is not just accommodation but a type of specialist support, so they can use that exception because they are providing a service. Additionally they must be able to show that it's a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim.

The rules for ordinary rented accommodation are in a different part of the EA that deals with the disposal of premises (selling or renting out a property). The exceptions for premises are in Schedule 5:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/5

A LL can decide to only let to female tenants and this will be lawful as long as she does not use an agent or place any advertisements - i.e. word of mouth only.

Unfortunately, OP cannot use this exception because she says, 'I do everything as professionally as possible, I advertise empty rooms ...'

If OP was a resident LL, sharing facilities with her tenants, she could also decide to only rent to female tenants or lodgers and this would be lawful.

There is no exception she can use to prevent her tenants from having male guests and she's not trying to do this anyway. In her OP she says:

One of the House rules states: "Your room is for single occupancy only and boyfriends / girlfriends etc. should only really stay every other weekend."

By the way, how did the boyfriend end up in his underpants? OP said he was wearing a dressing gown

@LangClegsInSpaceThat is a helpful response thanks. It does bring back the query about a landlady with more than two rooms to let becoming a resident landlady with lodgers. For the sake of everyone, even the neighbours (pay parties, brothels, bullies ) the easier way to monitor the activities would seem the best. Lodgers who are happy will often stay for years, and become a substitute family, caretaking for themselves in the absence of the resident landlady who works away, or works shifts, or has care commitments or a romantic relationship meaning she is often away. What do you think??

Or, is it possible to be a quasi-refuge, or abuse recovery haven, since they obviously do manage to keep men out? If the women are banned from having any invitees / guests overnight, and none in communal areas, it would be an option for a compromise for the totally well behaved

What do I think?

I think it's irrelevant to OP's situation.

A resident LL with lodgers can impose all sorts of house rules because lodgers have very few housing rights. If you wanted to create a female only living environment then that would be one way of doing it. But OP has tenants, not lodgers, and that wouldn't change if she moved in.

Or, is it possible to be a quasi-refuge, or abuse recovery haven, since they obviously do manage to keep men out? If the women are banned from having any invitees / guests overnight, and none in communal areas, it would be an option for a compromise for the totally well behaved

Not really, you'd have to actually be providing services to use that exception. And again, if the residents are tenants you can't really impose those kinds of rules.

Then what can house sharers do, to be safe, especially since even the domestic abuse bill counts them as non-existent, if someone they cannot exclude from their home is abusing them within their domicile?

(It can seem that there is enough and more than enough protection for those abused by the correctly classified abuser, (partner or ex,) which I am told will include as 'personal relationship' the briefest encounter, and the least 'terrifying' abuse; even theoretically a one night stander who spent an interesting half hour with them down the alley near a club, and six months later happens to recognise them outside their home, and call out from the other side of the street: He is an ex and therefore they count as victims of domestic abuse. (!) Also, a woman with the resources of an M.P, with a b.f. she could exclude, pots of cash, legal advice, other places to live, can trigger the full resources of DA , but a woman raped beaten and coerced by a fellow occupant of a house and with no way to run away because she has no hope of anywhere else to live, just doesn't count.)

Give notice under Section 8 for reasons of anti social behaviour. You can reduce notice. Read here

www.gov.uk/evicting-tenants/section-21-and-section-8-notices

I don't pretend to know the law on this. It seems to me that OP has tried to make this into a house where each tenant has a bedroom and shared space between 4 tenants. She's allowed for the occasional visitor.

I think the other two tenants have come up with a sensible idea to bridge the gap until Ann leaves. But if you want to live with your bf then you need to find appropriate accommodation.

@Felifox

I don't pretend to know the law on this. It seems to me that OP has tried to make this into a house where each tenant has a bedroom and shared space between 4 tenants. She's allowed for the occasional visitor.

I think the other two tenants have come up with a sensible idea to bridge the gap until Ann leaves. But if you want to live with your bf then you need to find appropriate accommodation.

No I don't think it is two other tenants, it is three. The male is not a tenant in his own right, just a visitor of one of the four women. He shouldn't be there at all, except as an occasional guest, not, as he has to all effects, simply moving in , rent free, and monopolising the communal space.

Then what can house sharers do, to be safe, especially since even the domestic abuse bill counts them as non-existent, if someone they cannot exclude from their home is abusing them within their domicile?

@alwayslucky It'd be like any other case of sexual assault etc- covered by existing laws. God willing, decent landlords would throw abusers out (it would be justifiable in cases of crime etc of course.

But thankfully, hopefully, this isn't the case with this guy. I hope he buggers off, though.

@alwayslucky

Then what can house sharers do, to be safe, especially since even the domestic abuse bill counts them as non-existent, if someone they cannot exclude from their home is abusing them within their domicile?

(It can seem that there is enough and more than enough protection for those abused by the correctly classified abuser, (partner or ex,) which I am told will include as 'personal relationship' the briefest encounter, and the least 'terrifying' abuse; even theoretically a one night stander who spent an interesting half hour with them down the alley near a club, and six months later happens to recognise them outside their home, and call out from the other side of the street: He is an ex and therefore they count as victims of domestic abuse. (!) Also, a woman with the resources of an M.P, with a b.f. she could exclude, pots of cash, legal advice, other places to live, can trigger the full resources of DA , but a woman raped beaten and coerced by a fellow occupant of a house and with no way to run away because she has no hope of anywhere else to live, just doesn't count.)

It seems like you're expecting the DA bill to do something different from what it's designed to do.

Domestic abuse is different from other types of abuse precisely because of the close personal relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. That type of relationship enables the perpetrator to leverage his victim's sense of loyalty, her sense of guilt at hurting someone she is supposed to love, and her protective instincts towards her children or other vulnerable family members. The close relationship enables an abuser to isolate his victim from friends, family and outside sources of support, and to convince her that she is worthless and useless and could not survive without her abuser, or that the horrible things he is doing to her are just normal in a relationship.

Until very, very recently it was common for people to say 'why didn't she just leave?'

If you found yourself in a house share with a creepy abusive arsehole then provided you had the financial and practical means, it would not be difficult to leave.

You could just leave.

For victims of domestic abuse it's never that simple even if it's financially and practically possible.

Most forms of domestic abuse already fall under existing criminal law and many of these laws can be used against perpetrators who happen to live in the same shared accomodation.

The DA bill builds on top of those laws and closes some loopholes that are commonly exploited by perpetrators who are in close, personal relationships with their victims, but which are not much use to perpetrators outside of that context.

There most definitely are major issues around safety and protection from abuse in shared accommodation but the DA bill is not the right law to address that.

We'd achieve far more through welfare reform. Currently, single people under 35 can only claim LHA at the shared accommodation rate. This doesn't just affect those who are not in work but also those in low paid jobs who need a top up to pay their rent and those who are not entitled to any benefits because their wage covers the rent on a room in a shared house but would not cover the rent on self-contained accommodation.

DWP has taken no account of the potential vulnerability of young renters, particularly women.

It can seem that there is enough and more than enough protection for those abused by the correctly classified abuser, (partner or ex,)

It doesn't seem that way to me.

All this is a million miles from OP's question. She just needs to -

1. check local HMO licencing rules
2. if necessary apply for a licence
3. serve Ann with a S21

I just read an article about police giving a Covid breach warning to a pensioner so it looks police can be called if Ann continues to flout Covid rules in the future? Especially if a tenant effectively moved someone in despite saying that their partner was not there and isn’t just visiting occasionally.

[quote Trekkerbabe]Give notice under Section 8 for reasons of anti social behaviour. You can reduce notice. Read here

www.gov.uk/evicting-tenants/section-21-and-section-8-notices[/quote]
There is no way on earth that this would ever be categorised as antisocial behaviour for court possession purposes.

Then what can house sharers do, to be safe

I think the best you can do is rent on a joint tenancy with people you trust. If you rent a room in a shared house you have no say in who else lives there.

I did, I was the first to move in to a recently renovated house. About a month later the landlord rented another room to someone who turned out to be insane. Shouting for hours in the middle of the night, abrupt mood swings, one moment all friendly the next baselessly accusing me of theft. There was nothing I could do except move out.

There’s no particular reason for OP to report Ann and boyfriend to the police for covid reasons (which we don’t know they are in breach of) as that’s something Betsy or anyone else living in the house could do if it bothered them. And if Ann is reported then the rest of the tenants can probably expect to have all their own visitors similarly reported.

It may astound some people to know that women are disabled, women are old, women are vulnerable, women are abused, as shown by secret filming of such things as two 'carers' beating a blind old woman "shut up or we'll break every bone in your body". Now, why didn't she simply leave and find somewhere else to live, do you suppose?
She certainly wasn't at risk, or vulnerable to abuse, where she lived, was she? Why didn't she trot off to a solicitor and take a court case? The DA movement is convinced that nothing but emotional attachment could have made her unable to leave. If she was raped, she was free to bring a court case against her assailants, while living in the same place, wasn't she?

Most homelessness is 'hidden homelessness, inside houses. It is NOT exclusive to young people. Older, or disabled, or middle aged, frightened and career-less women often can't buy or rent, when they need somewhere to live. They are desperate for a roof over their heads, and they must put up with whatever happens to them there, if they have nowhere else to go. Truly, literally, having NOWHERE else to go and NO means to escape makes women far MORE vulnerable to abuse inside the home than the stereotypical idea of a woman staying with the man she loves.

Middle aged middle class women can fall through the bear-traps of not being 'deemed' to exist (as shown by remarks on this thread) A vicar's wife became homeless when the church authorities sold the vicarage, but the husband was offered a single room lodgings for his new abode far away. She and the children couldn't qualify as 'homeless' or even qualify for housing benefit. She distributed some of her children around the ex-parishioners, and herself 'sofa surfed' with the disabled one, who could not be moved from her hard-won 'special school' place. She wasn't abused, molested or coerced, but if she had been, she would have had little option except to put up with it and keep quiet, because nowhere else with wheelchair access would let her and the child both stay she had nowhere else to go. (No, not the council, she didn't count)

"Why doesn't she leave? Because she cannot" is absolutely not exclusively, and probably not mainly, applicable to the 'personal relationship', where the not-leaving has no logical cause.

A slightly built, older woman was reluctantly forced to live in a house-share, where the resident bully had driven out others, (younger and with parents or friends to run to. ) Police warned the disabled old woman to leave as the bone-breaking violence was serious and she was likely to be killed. Was she staying, do you think, simply because, despite having just as many other options as you would, she couldn't be bothered to move? Police warned, of course, she should not attempt to bring charges, until she had escaped. They thought it was domestic violence. But it did not qualify.

It would be DA, ironically, even if it was not inside the house, and a woman is living perfectly safely with a new partner. Any annoyance from a long absent ex partner would mean she could ask for the full protection of the DA system.

Cat Neuterer
Shes in breach of contract by allowing a man to stay there permanently when the lease was for a single person.
Section 8 therefore applies.
I havent read the detailed guidance nor am I a lawyer but i would suggest OP speak to Citizens Advice

@Trekkerbabe

Cat Neuterer Shes in breach of contract by allowing a man to stay there permanently when the lease was for a single person. Section 8 therefore applies. I havent read the detailed guidance nor am I a lawyer but i would suggest OP speak to Citizens Advice

@Trekkerbabe "nor am I a lawyer" . . ..

That is obvious to those of us who are or have practised in this area but may not be so obvious to those who aren't. I can assure you that you are wrong.

There is no way judge would grant a ground 8 in these circumstances.

OP get that section 21 notice in

@Trekkerbabe

Cat Neuterer Shes in breach of contract by allowing a man to stay there permanently when the lease was for a single person. Section 8 therefore applies. I havent read the detailed guidance nor am I a lawyer but i would suggest OP speak to Citizens Advice

Yes i.know section 8 could be used, but not antisocial behaviour grounds. It would be a discretionary ground of not abiding with the contract terms and, as such, section 21 would be a much safer bet.

@alwayslucky

It may astound some people to know that women are disabled, women are old, women are vulnerable, women are abused, as shown by secret filming of such things as two 'carers' beating a blind old woman "shut up or we'll break every bone in your body". Now, why didn't she simply leave and find somewhere else to live, do you suppose? She certainly wasn't at risk, or vulnerable to abuse, where she lived, was she? Why didn't she trot off to a solicitor and take a court case? The DA movement is convinced that nothing but emotional attachment could have made her unable to leave. If she was raped, she was free to bring a court case against her assailants, while living in the same place, wasn't she?

Most homelessness is 'hidden homelessness, inside houses. It is NOT exclusive to young people. Older, or disabled, or middle aged, frightened and career-less women often can't buy or rent, when they need somewhere to live. They are desperate for a roof over their heads, and they must put up with whatever happens to them there, if they have nowhere else to go. Truly, literally, having NOWHERE else to go and NO means to escape makes women far MORE vulnerable to abuse inside the home than the stereotypical idea of a woman staying with the man she loves.

Middle aged middle class women can fall through the bear-traps of not being 'deemed' to exist (as shown by remarks on this thread) A vicar's wife became homeless when the church authorities sold the vicarage, but the husband was offered a single room lodgings for his new abode far away. She and the children couldn't qualify as 'homeless' or even qualify for housing benefit. She distributed some of her children around the ex-parishioners, and herself 'sofa surfed' with the disabled one, who could not be moved from her hard-won 'special school' place. She wasn't abused, molested or coerced, but if she had been, she would have had little option except to put up with it and keep quiet, because nowhere else with wheelchair access would let her and the child both stay she had nowhere else to go. (No, not the council, she didn't count)

"Why doesn't she leave? Because she cannot" is absolutely not exclusively, and probably not mainly, applicable to the 'personal relationship', where the not-leaving has no logical cause.

A slightly built, older woman was reluctantly forced to live in a house-share, where the resident bully had driven out others, (younger and with parents or friends to run to. ) Police warned the disabled old woman to leave as the bone-breaking violence was serious and she was likely to be killed. Was she staying, do you think, simply because, despite having just as many other options as you would, she couldn't be bothered to move? Police warned, of course, she should not attempt to bring charges, until she had escaped. They thought it was domestic violence. But it did not qualify.

It would be DA, ironically, even if it was not inside the house, and a woman is living perfectly safely with a new partner. Any annoyance from a long absent ex partner would mean she could ask for the full protection of the DA system.

I'm not astounded at all and neither am I middle class.

I still say that the DA bill cannot possibly fix all of this and neither should it try.