Hi, I was a live-in landlord and my lodger signed an assured short hold tenancy agreement. The said lodger was responsible for damage,for which I have receipts and deducted said amounts from the deposit. He is now saying he is taking me to court because I should have put it in a government DPS. However, I didnt know the difference between any of these agreements and was told that as a live in landlord, whoever else stays with you automatically has the rights of a lodger and cant take me to court over this matter. Can you please clarify as I am currently very confused and need to get a solicitor otherwise.
The tenant has left and I didn't know the difference between the agreements to be honest and I was told if you are a live-in landlord its fine as automatically a tenants status is that of a lodger. I have returned the deposit less costs and have receipts.
problem is no DPS as I was told as a live-in landlord its not required
If you are live in then he is just a lodger, not a formal tenant and you do not need to protect the deposit.
That means if he takes you to Court he will lose.
but he signed an AST...
But even assuming that he has an AST tenant and you did not protect the deposit, if you refunded it and the agreement ended case law says that he can NOT claim anything
So either way he can not claim.
Can I clarify anything about this for you today please?
It was refunded minus costs... So im assuming he wants the money for the costs back, and then wants more money because he is stating it should be in a DPS. So he is stating that he actually hasn't received it
Minus what costs?
The costs have receipts to back them and no money was taken just for the sake of it. just the money regarding the damages and not a penny more.
Can you prove damages?
Yes, photo evidence, and he agreed that it was his fault on the phone
Ok - it makes no difference what he signed, he does NOT have an AST, he can not have.
So it makes no difference if he tries to take you to Court for non protection.
He signed an AST though... i have checked the contract
It makes no difference.
It is ONLY an AST if he has exclusive access to the property. He does not, you lived there
Therefore it can NEVER be an AST
Can you provide case law evidence for this and somewhere i can refer to material on this?
I have had mixed responses all morning, and its clear this is a grey area
Let me have a look
Gladehurst Properties Ltd v Hashemi (on behalf of himself and Matthew Johnson)  EWCA Civ 604,
Does that help?
it does but it doesnt have any reference to live-in landlords?
Thats the bit that seems to be confusing, as a live-in landlord i gave my lodger an AST contract, and now he says his AST status supercedes that of a lodger and I as a live-in landlord i have reduced rights.
But there is NO AST
It can NOT be
You do not need to protect the deposit
And if you did if the tenancy has ended then you are under no obligation to now protect
ok, so the crux of what i am trying to find out is - where is it stated what the definition of an AST is? and if there is a caveat to an AST not being an AST due to no private access etc
But it can NOT be an AST if you live there - you own the house, the tenant is just a lodger.
simple as that?
Otherwise they are a lodger!
They need to have EXCLUSIVE access to the whole property to be an AST
(sorry if im being pedantic, just dotting the i's and crossing the t's)
Can I help further about this?
No, thank you
If this answers your question could I invite you leave feedback on my service which I hope has been excellent today, if you need more information or help then please click reply.
Please remember that I am always happy to help if you have future questions, even if I am in Court I can normally respond within a few hours. For future information, please start them with ‘For Alex W’.
Please bookmark my profile if you wish for future help: http://www.justanswer.co.uk/law/expert-alexwatts/
Can I help further?