If i have a bedroom in two properties can i live in both for the purposes of calling lodgers lodgers and not tenants ? I genuinely do intend to live in both properties as i have interests in both cities which are nearby each other.
No. Only one property can be your permanent home for tenancy and tax purposes. You would need to create a room only AST at the other property to allow you access to it. This would grant a licence to use the common parts.
That sounds dodgy, because it is
Not necessarily dodgy. Might live and work in different places and have a house in each.
It’s dodgy in terms of trying to dodge taxes and responsibilities to the tenants.
If anything it sounds like the permanent residents should be labeled that while the owner, who splits time between the two, is the lodger.
Hmm, but you can’t be a lodger in your own house - what if the tenant gives you notice??
It isn’t your house unless you live there 51% of the time. You can’t live in two places 51% of the time. If you’re living there less than 51% of the time then it’s not your house it’s a property you’re letting as landlord.
You shouldn’t try to have your cake and eat it, too.
Rather than arguing about the wording, here is some actual useful guidance:
You can only be a resident landlord in one property (your main residence). The advantages of being a resident landlord are in the link.
Nothing to stop you renting out a room in the other house but the tenant would have more rights. I guess you would have to have an HMO type (ie room and shared areas) agreement (wouldn’t actually be an HMO unless you had more than one lodger).
Its his house,he can do what he likes, if he can find a legal loophole in the Govt money grabbing schemes best of luck to him
Leaving the legal position aside, if you’re going to leave a lodger on their own in a property for any length of time, you need to be really careful who you have as a lodger. Not all lodgers are that responsible, particularly when left unsupervised.