Hi,
I have a HMO with 5 students on separate tenancy contracts. Tenant 3 has been complaining to me that tenant 5’s boyfriend has been living at the property. Tenant 3 says he is messy, noisy, leaves the front door unlocked, sets off the fire alarm, etc… and would like him to spend less time at the property. I have encourage tenant 3 to speak to tenant 5 but she doesn’t want to cause friction/is apprehensive of confrontation. I have spoken to tenant 5 and she denies that her boyfriend has moved in but admitted he did stay in the week (she goes to his at the weekend). I’ve raised the points that upset the other tenant but from her reaction I’m not expecting much improvement. Therefore what are the occupancy terms of the tenancy contract? 40 says “The tenant shall not allow any person to occupy the property (of whatever age) other than those named as tenants or permitted occupiers in this agreement.” Does that mean the tenants are not allowed any overnight visitors? What about the shared facilities; what can I do about guests making a mess/noise?
Thanks,
3 Comments
In addition to the clause you mention, this would also be covered by the tenant not being allowed to cause nuisance or annoyance to others.
However, in reality, it can be difficult to deal with because those grounds for possession are discretionary (meaning even if proven the court doesn’t have to give possession).
We would start by a letter so it’s recorded in writing. You can base it on this template.
Then if that fails, you could serve a section 8 notice on grounds of breach of tenancy. But, we wouldn’t advise going to court on that basis unless it became absolutely essential.
Thanks for that; that’s very helpful. Just to confirm clause 40 means no overnight guests?
It’s a question of degree as to whether they are occupying or not. It’s certainly worth referring to in your letter.
It would be an unfair term (and so unenforceable) if it disallowed an overnight guest. The question is, at what point does an overnight guest become an occupier?
That’s why we wouldn’t want to go to court on it and also we believe the causing nuisance or annoyance clause would be as good a ground as any to go on.