Isn't a private tenant a "legal occupier"?

[tom73]

A couple rent out two rooms in their home. They just kicked out one guy because he opened a letter addressed "The Legal Occupier". The letter was from TV Licensing advising the opening of an investigation into that address.
Did the guy deserve to be kicked out or were the couple wrong to kick him out?

 

[tony_mac]

When you are living in someone else's home, you have very few rights. They have to give reasonable notice, but otherwise they can kick people out for just about any reason (except e.g., subject to equalities act).
I think that it's a remarkably petty thing to do, but I suspect that this wasn't the only cause of tension - I think most lodgers wouldn't open such mail.

 

[DarloRich]

A couple rent out two rooms in their home. They just kicked out one guy because he opened a letter addressed "The Legal Occupier". The letter was from TV Licensing advising the opening of an investigation into that address.
Did the guy deserve to be kicked out or were the couple wrong to kick him out?

shouldn't they have 3 TV licenses? If each tenant has their own tenancy agreement, they would each need a TV Licence for their room. Does that help?

I am not even sure the phrase "legal occupier" has any definition. It is an important sounding but meaningless phrase used by TV licensing to get you to open their letters.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

shouldn't they have 3 TV licenses? If each tenant has their own tenancy agreement, they would each need a TV Licence for their room. Does that help?

I am not even sure the phrase "legal occupier" has any definition. It is an important sounding but meaningless phrase used by TV licensing to get you to open their letters.

I just love opening my monthly meaningless letter from TV Licensing. Each month a different one - from a selection of eight standard letters. Which will it be this Friday? I haven't had a "we're giving you 10 days to get correctly licenced" one for a while. Even though I am correctly licenced (or correctly unlicenced to be more accurate).

As for the lodger, seems a little harsh if that is his only poor behaviour. Did he pass on the letter or open it and throw it away? Are the house-owners watching TV without a licence and now the lodger knows this? Grass em up!

 

[DarloRich]

I just love opening my monthly meaningless letter from TV Licensing. Each month a different one - from a selection of eight standard letters. Which will it be this Friday? I haven't had a "we're giving you 10 days to get correctly licenced" one for a while. Even though I am correctly licenced (or correctly unlicenced to be more accurate).

so many people on the internet seem to make a big song and dance about tv licenses. Just tell them you don't have a tv. Job done. Then, if they send you a letter bin it! I didn't have a tv license for several years as i didn't own a tv.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

so many people on the internet seem to make a big song and dance about tv licenses. Just tell them you don't have a tv. Job done. Then, if they send you a letter bin it! I didn't have a tv license for several years as i didn't own a tv.

But it is a form of harrassment.
The tone and nature of the letters is meant to frighten (mostly innocent) people.
If the probation service put on the outside of an envelope 'this is the date of your next appointment with the probation service', or if the magistrates court sent out letters with 'this letter contains your court date' printed in big red letters on the outside, would either be acceptable?

 

[DarloRich]

But it is a form of harrassment.
The tone and nature of the letters is meant to frighten (mostly innocent) people.
If the probation service put on the outside of an envelope 'this is the date of your next appointment with the probation service', or if the magistrates court sent out letters with 'this letter contains your court date' printed in big red letters on the outside, would either be acceptable?

Get a grip. It is a letter. Bin it. Plus for the probation service to contact you would have had to be found guilty of a crime!

Harassment. It couldn't be further from then

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A couple rent out two rooms in their home. They just kicked out one guy because he opened a letter addressed "The Legal Occupier". The letter was from TV Licensing advising the opening of an investigation into that address.
Did the guy deserve to be kicked out or were the couple wrong to kick him out?

When you are living in someone else's home, you have very few rights. They have to give reasonable notice, but otherwise they can kick people out for just about any reason (except e.g., subject to equalities act).
I think that it's a remarkably petty thing to do, but I suspect that this wasn't the only cause of tension - I think most lodgers wouldn't open such mail.

Agreed. No reasonable landlord is going to kick a lodger out (and then have to go to all the trouble of finding a new lodger) just for mistakenly opening a letter. I'd make a strong guess that, either there were some existing problems and this was the metaphorical straw. Or the couple had some reason why they wanted to kick the guy out anyway and this provided the excuse. (Or the couple are not reasonable people and so you don't want to be renting from them anyway )

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed. No reasonable person is going to kick a lodger out (and then have to go to all the trouble of finding a new lodger) just for mistakenly opening a letter. I'd make as strong guess that, either there were some existing problems and this was the metaphorical straw. Or the couple had some reason why they wanted to kick the guy out anyway and this provided the excuse.

Noting that with a lodger "I said so" is a quite adequate reason. It has to be that way, really; you can't end up in a position where a homeowner can't live in their home because a lodger can't be removed if they don't get on. Quite different to where a separate property is being rented.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed. No reasonable landlord is going to kick a lodger out (and then have to go to all the trouble of finding a new lodger) just for mistakenly opening a letter. I'd make a strong guess that, either there were some existing problems and this was the metaphorical straw. Or the couple had some reason why they wanted to kick the guy out anyway and this provided the excuse. (Or the couple are not reasonable people and so you don't want to be renting from them anyway )

Or over a long period he had been doing things like that despite repeated requests not to do so.

 

[Basher]

It's all down to whether they pay rent, and have a tenancy agreement. Generally it's two months notice must be given.
If there is no agreement then it defaults to a short term tenancy by law.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's all down to whether they pay rent, and have a tenancy agreement. Generally it's two months notice must be given.
If there is no agreement then it defaults to a short term tenancy by law.

This is NOT the case for a lodger (someone living in the same home as the homeowner who rents them the room). A lodger basically has no rights, unless the homeowner decided to write a contract giving them some, but why would they? And it would be totally unworkable for them to have such rights.

 

[tony_mac]

It's all down to whether they pay rent, and have a tenancy agreement. Generally it's two months notice must be given.
If there is no agreement then it defaults to a short term tenancy by law.

There's so much wrong information in this post that I don't think it's worth trying to correct it all...
For a reliable reference:-
https://england.shelter.org.uk/hous...ction_of_lodgers_and_other_excluded_occupiers

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's so much wrong with this that I don't think it's worth trying to correct it all....
https://england.shelter.org.uk/hous...ction_of_lodgers_and_other_excluded_occupiers

As I said it would be unworkable to have a lodger able to assert rights of tenancy, as doing so would be to the exclusion of the homeowner's right to enjoy their own home. If you want security of tenure, you need to rent a self-contained property, and if that is unaffordable rent one as a share between equals or a room in an HMO.

 

[tony_mac]

As I said it would be unworkable to have a lodger able to assert rights of tenancy, as doing so would be to the exclusion of the homeowner's right to enjoy their own home.

Just to clarify, I was referring only to the post I quoted as being 'wrong', and was not passing comment on the situation - I've edited my previous post to try and remove the ambiguity.

 

[underbank]

He would be the "legal occupier" if he had a proper tenancy agreement and renting the entire property.

As a lodger in someone else's home, it's the "someone else" who is the legal occupier.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just to clarify, I was referring only to the post I quoted as being 'wrong', and was not passing comment on the situation - I've edited my previous post to try and remove the ambiguity.

Ah, thanks.