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.

This. Landlords are getting a rough ride since renters reform and it’s causing issues. Serve notice to evict for breach of tenancy covenants and take it from there.

I am surprised the police didn’t check on the vulnerability of your tenant and whether this unwanted guest is trying to cuckoo his home. Maybe that could be suggested to them if you have to talk to them again; you could ask them for advice around this topic, which they should know about.

In the past, Shelter have given me information for local charities that support people with no recourse to public funds. They paid for some form of accommodation. Adult social services also helped with another person in that situation who had mental health issues and/or learning difficulties. I believe that person is now in an adult group home.

As I've said, my house is full because I already help people in need. But I can advise the OP how to help based on my experience of helping others in similar situations to this woman.

Hopefully you never become a landlord then. Letting her stay off books is illegal. Insurance would be void, if anything happened to her in the property it could have serious implications for OP. The other tenants should not have to put up with it. Its all very well caring about humans but it is clear in this case that the lady in question has issues, whether these be with mental health, addiction etc. She needs proper help and support through the correct agencies. Having a vulnerable woman staying illegally with no help or support is not exactly going to change her life for the better.

It's not illegal for people with NRPF to be housed, but there's whole categories of them that the council don't have any duty towards. What this means is that nobody can assume they would be able to work with a council to get an NRPF person housed. The council might simply say not our problem, off you go.

Op you don't need to feel guilty for following and complying with the law.

Landlords are no more responsible for homeless people than sailors are. We don't make up the rules, that's the government's responsibility as is homelessness.

If people feel so strongly about this issue they should email their MP and demand some social justice.

You would be breaking the law and susceptible to criminal charges if you house a person with no right to rent, which is the case here.

Contact them yourself and explain the situation. Explain that you are illegally housing her but you understand that the council have told her not to leave. They will work with you and move her on themselves.

Probably 'First post written by idiot desperate to be first post'

Are you actually reading the OPs posts?

She's had numerous complaints from the other tenants about this woman and even the tenant she was visiting said he was being bullied into having her stay there!

Yes. Hence why I've advised her what to do.

No recourse means they're only entitled to support from teams specific to those with no recourse. That's not the council housing team, and it's extremely rare to be given any kind of accommodation because no recourse means public funds cannot be used to house them. It's usually only when there's a potential human rights breach/danger to life that it's done, or if something else is uncovered (for example, someone might have no recourse but if they're fleeing domestic abuse from their partner here in the UK they can be supported under special legislation so they're not forced back to live with their abuser)
Generally though, no recourse means what it says - you're allowed in the country on the basis that you're self funding, and if that changes you have to return home.

She is to the home owner.

Have you handed your home over to your son's mate? Bit mean if you haven't.

Do you understand that I've done this before?

He wouldnt want that because nobody would cook him dinner.

You could still come in to do his meals and clean the house? Maybe he will let you be a tenant.

Basically, there's whole categories of NRPF people LAs don't have any duty to provide with housing at all.

There exist some charities who provide housing for people in this situation, without being able to claim any public funding towards it. If none of these charities have anything available, and I assume we all know we're not exactly in an environment of abundance for the sector right now, there may not actually be anywhere such a person can be referred to. They're going to be housed unofficially or not at all.

As have I.
The criteria for supporting people under NRPF are extremely strict. I worked for a charity for those who were street homeless, we had a mixture of grant funding and public donations. We had to evidence in the books where people who were NRPF got food parcels, where the funding was from (donations from the public) as we would be going against the terms of our grants/contracts if we used any public funds.

The only way people who are NRPF can be housed without paying for it themselves through wages/savings is if there's a human rights case to be argued, and that's usually very temporary or someone gives the house for free (there's a tiny number of churches that have done this)

Obviously people can be NRPF and claiming asylum in which case they can get asylum specific accommodation during the claim but I don't think that's the case here.

She is to the landlord but I think you are being intentionally obtuse. You've chosen the hill you want to die on, and nothing is going to get through to you.

@ VointofPiew

I have never given permission for this woman to be in the property, so I won’t be telling a council department that I have been illegally housing her. She may have been illegally in the property, but that’s not the same thing.

I am also trying not to get any more involved with her than I have already been forced to be.

She is not currently in the property. My concern is that the tenant will be bullied into allowing her back in.

I have been shown message between the tenant and the council where he says she is not allowed to live with him.

No need. He's happy with a roof over his head until he gets somehere else.

No you have only TOLD her what you would do.
But I really think you have no grasp of the situation here.

You shouldn’t be talking to the friends. That crosses a line into interfering in people’s personal lives - even if the tenant would like you to do this on his behalf.

Otherwise, you’re right. Draw a firm line and stick to it. Otherwise, Council aside, you’d surely be breaking your contract with the other tenants, who signed up to live in a house of four tenants, not a hostel for variable numbers of vulnerable, unpredictable people.