AIBU to refuse a tenant's vulnerable guest staying in my HMO?

[Poster555]

NC for this. I know landlords aren’t always popular here.

I own and manage a few HMO’s in a nearby city. All legal requirements fulfilled, and normally have long term tenants.

I woke this morning to a host of missed calls.
One of the tenants, who has been fine for several years, invited his friend/ relative to stay for a temporary period as she was having issues with her landlord.
He did not discuss this with me or the other tenants.

Tenants are of course allowed visitors, including overnight for a day or two ( longer if they are visiting from abroad, etc. it’s pretty flexible).
The Tenancy Agreement is very clear that visitors visit the person, and they should never be left unsupervised in the property or given a key.

Around 6 weeks ago I was at the property for a routine treatment. The visitor was there alone. I had to ask her to leave as harmful chemicals were being used.

I had a chat with the tenant later and he explained it was a one off emergency.

It later transpired after complaints from other tenants and some unexplained damage that she was living in the property.

That was a problem. She had no primary address elsewhere and her presence took the property into the next level of HMO, meaning it needed to be registered.
The penalties for not registering when required are severe.

I told the tenant he needed to tell her to leave.

He did so and was met with a lot of resistance, but eventually she went, only to return in the early hours some days later. He felt he had to let her in.

He asked for my help to get her to leave. She refused, saying the council had told her that I’d have to get a court order to evict her.

Legal advice was that he invited her in and once he told her she was no longer welcome we could change locks when she was out.

She actually went out without a key and whilst she was gone he put her belongings in a locked shed outside, offering to open it when she needed.

That was about a week ago. I thought it was sorted. The calls in the early hours were from my tenant and the police asking if I would agree to her staying the night.

I would have said no and fortunately as they couldn’t reach me she was not allowed in.

This woman clearly has problems. I’d say she is vulnerable, but the same council that was advising her not to leave my property, whilst refusing any sort of practical assistance, would also be the ones taking action against me for running an unlicensed HMO.

The tenant is being bullied by so called friends to let her stay. He is under a lot of pressure but I’ve had to tell him that if he lets her stay I will have to take steps to evict him.

I have told him that I will speak to any official bodies that are trying to pressure him, and to the ‘friends’
I wasn’t expecting to speak to the police at 2-3 am though. Apparently they weren’t happy with me and thought the tenant should be able to take her in.

She is a homeless unemployed alcoholic. She won't be on a student visa. If she was on a work visa that will have been tied to the job she no longer has. If she is on a tourist visa or a visa waiver that is only good for 3-6 months then she becomes an overstayer. I just cannot understand why more people aren't angry that this immigrant is abusing our hospitality.

The woman in question is not the only person who needs help here. The tenants desreve to have their tenancy agreements honoured and not to be subjected to overcrowding. The OP shouldn't be blamed for doing her best to balance these needs while meeting her own legal obligations.

@VointofPiew the OP isn't throwing someone out on the streets any more than you or I are. This lady is on the streets anyway. The OP is declining to help because it conflicts with her other responsibilities and obligations. It's not for OP to agree to help by disadvantaging a number of other people to whom she has a legal and moral obligation.

Why should he have to get somewhere else??
If he's in need of somewhere else then you've not made him comfortable enough. Do more.

I lived in HMOs for years, many people can't afford to live on their own. It's already pressured sharing communal space with strangers, it's not fair on the other tenants if there's an extra person and the related tenant doesn't even want them there - you need to support the tenants, not a random person who is trying to join for free!

@Pumpkindice is right. Aside from the legal implications, you're supporting and protecting your existing tenants by not allowing her to stay. She clearly has major problems and could cause so much trouble for them.

The tenant who has allowed her to stay sounds rather vulnerable himself as he's finding it hard to say no. Keep backing him up, OP.

Would you like to stay in a one room dwelling in a house full of strangers for the rest of your life? Why should be not have greater aspirations?

There are plenty of routes that someone can be here legally and NRPF. I'm angry that racist men invade Mumsnet but here we are!

Also, whose hospitality is she abusing exactly - she's not getting anything from you or I. That's what NRPF means Seems you've missed the entire point of the thread. But then given you think people with NRFP are rounded up by border force patrolling our streets, that's not really surprising.

OMG there is always one.

She is causing problems for the tenant for the OP & for the police. I'm as left wing as they come & vehemently anti-racist which doesn't mean I think we as a society should be tolerating a homeless unemployed alcoholic migrant taking the piss.

She is not your problem OP and your tenant now agrees. Sounds harsh but you have to be in these situations. https://thestreetlink.org.uk help people who are sleeping rough regardless of benefit entitlement etc

You would be in huge trouble for overcrowding if you allowed multiple people in each room and all the posters saying let her stay now would be saying what awful conditions people were living in

Indeed, @chirrupybird; we've already had one telling OP to "do more" and the usual landlord bashers and "be kind-ers" are already circling

In fairness none of us know this woman's immigration status, but it bears saying that some aren't in the least interested in what's lawful or what their own responsibilities are. They simply want somewere free to stay and to live off others, and if that causes trouble for the likes of OP, too bad

As said, OP's tenant may or may not be of this mindset - though the lying about her staying and repeatedly letting her in aren't positive - but that's something I'd want to know before making any decisions on what to do about his own considerable part in this

Another update.

I have been to the flat. The relevant tenant didn’t answer when I knocked on his door. There were 2 other tenants there who both thought he’d gone out.

There were items, including female clothing, in the shed.

The 2 tenants I spoke to have not seen the friend in the flat for several days.

Some of the tenants have been with me for years and as far as I can possibly tell I trust these two to be honest.

They did admit that the friend had been there there often and they weren’t happy with it, but didn’t want to make a fuss. That changed after the damage to the shower.

They say that all tenants are aware of the need to not let her into to the flat.

On my way out a neighbour spoke to me ( I always introduce myself to the neighbours and give them my contact details in case of problems). She is elderly and sleeps very little at night. I get on well with her but she is definitely a ‘nosey neighbour’ She told me that the woman had remained in the shared hallway. She saw her on her way out around 6.00am.

She had overheard a bit of the conversation with police. The woman refused to leave with the PC’s. There was some discussion and eventually they said she was not under arrest and then left.

I haven’t heard any more from the tenant or anyone else, thankfully.

I cannot be certain who caused the damage as I wasn’t there and no one witnessed it.

From a liability perspective it’s not relevant as the tenant is liable either way. The Tenancy Agreement is very clear that the tenant is responsible for any damage caused by his visitors.

Be kinders are not grasping that if the OP doesn't take action there may be consequences for all the tenants living in the house.

The OP has responsibility for all of them.

If she lets one person - who doesn't have a legal agreement with her - take the piss, the people whom she has obligations to may find themselves in a situation where the OP loses the licence for the HMO or is fined so she has to sell. Or there are insurance implications somewhere.

It does my tits in when people virtue signal but have no fucking clue nor thought given to all affected parties.

The OP is limited in the options she has available and how it puts others at risk. The OP has legal obligations to the tenants but not to this random woman who is effectively trying to squat and is fraudulently saying this is her address.

What other things has she signed up to for this address? Fuck knows.

The OP has no reasonable choice but to get this woman to piss off and if the tenant doesn't comply, evict them for breach of contract. There isn't an alternative.

If only the UK government recognised it had similar responsibilities to the country.

The OP has no reasonable choice but to get this woman to piss off and if the tenant doesn't comply, evict them for breach of contract. There isn't an alternative

Precisely, @RedToothBrush, and accurately put on the rest of it

It's become very clear that a lot's being said to OP for effect, and no doubt it all sounds very nice about "caring for each other", but while they probably don't give a damn about the impact this has on other tenants and OP, her overall responsibility remains the same

Which is why I've said all along that a hard approach is necessary

What nationality is the homeless alcoholic unemployed woman?

Provide OP your address via PM and she can stay with you then.

No issues at all. What would be the point of a contract about max occupants etc if tenants (and councils) can just breach it? Enforce rules and laws.

Didn't even need the backstory. The answer is no.

But it is not 'the hard approach' it is the approach that is compliant with the law.

Very true, PrincessofWills, but I'm pretty damned sure that's how some would see it, the tenant, his guest, the supporters among their community and the "be kind" crowd included

As said earlier some really don't care what the law says, though they're pretty hot on invoking it when it suits. They want what they want, and anyone who stands in their way becomes a target for deception, false accusations and the rest

She’s back trying to get into the flat.
She can’t get into the building. It’s a relief that she doesn’t have a security fob.

The tenant is working a night shift and won’t be back until morning, so there’s no risk of her entering the flat.

It won’t be long until someone goes in or out of the building though, so she could gain access to the building.

The ‘nosey’ neighbour says she will call the police if she does get into the building.

Are you kidding?! She most likely has mental health issues and could be a giant pain in the OP’s backside.
She isn’t the OP’s responsibility, as harsh as that sounds.

There's no law against walking into a building, @Poster555 , so I doubt the police would do much

Guess you'd better hope she doesn't call your tenant to let her in, and that he doesn't leave work to do exactly that

Edited to add you'd better also hope he doesn't get his door fob copied for her. You could try pointing out that this would be against he rules of his tenancy, but whether it would make any difference is anyone's guess

Fortunately he shouldn’t be able to get a copy of the security fob as these are only (legally) available from the freeholder, and can only be requested by me as leaseholder.

He doesn’t drive so it would take a while for him to get home and back to work. I really hope he doesn’t do anything stupid.