How would you solve this

Fumigated op

Shady characters are shady.
Fumigate

Mr X should get his own place and have the children live with him if he doesn't like the house setup. It's not his house and as far as I can tell has no say in who is given lodging at the house of his mothers children.

Lay that smack down on they ass?

Sounds like someone needs help with a script.

Seems to me "Mr. X" here has got to get a clue about who is in charge. He appears to "hang out" once in awhile, but from what I can gather, he's not on the lease. And if he's not on the lease (if it's a lease) or on the deed (If Mum owns the place), then Mr.X has no say in the matter. It also appears that Mum has custody. So if that is also true, then Mr. X has no recourse save for the courts. The one issue seems to me to be about the boarders, and the fact is that the boarders are answerable only to Mum, not to Mr. X. It's a story that is very convoluted in its presentation, so it's a little difficult to ferret out the issues here. If there is, then rewrite the thing and state the objections overtly instead of pretending this third person Mr. X stuff.

Step one bring roaches bed bugs or termites or some other crazy outlandish insect into the house.
Now you have an excuse to fumigate and have everyone leave the house for a week.
Second blame the infestation on the newcomers.
Fumigate.
Change the locks.
Profit?

a reply to: dashen

I think you could skip step one and just hire a pest controller.

or just wait till everyone is there and throw in a couple dozen roach bombs. They either get smart real quick or not?

btw i am very confused and get a very violent vibe from the op. Something serious may be up if they are not script fishin.

a reply to: 1Angrylightbulb

No legal parameters were asked for , the question asked was what is the best way to proceed for mr.x

a reply to: DoctorBluechip

That's the best way, he has no say in how someone else runs their house. If it's a question of child safety then remove children to his house. It would be like me telling my sister she has to do this or that at her house just because I visit there frequently.

a reply to: 1Angrylightbulb

Well that is wrong because he has parental responsibility and therefore a right to know who the children are living with

a reply to: DoctorBluechip



That doesn't mean he gets to investigate them for living at a house he doesn't lease or own. If he thinks that the mom is being lax in her duty of care then get custody of kids. Is he going to investigate and expect detailed info from any possible live in boyfriend of the mom down the road?

a reply to: 1Angrylightbulb

It's more a matter of minor investigations into basic details being refused and obfuscated . Doesn't your average swiss nanny get references taken, what's the problem in this case then .

More to the point , mrx , how to proceed

Your reference to DBS suggests you are in UK.

When lodgers stay in a property where the legal occupant (Mr.x's ex) lives, they have no right of tenure.

Lodgers do not have a tenancy and any fee charged is referred to as 'board' and not rent.

If board is payable daily, Mr.x's ex can give instruction for the lodgers to leave within 24hrs

If the board is payable weekly, Mr.x's ex can tell the lodgers they have 7 days to leave.

If the board is payable monthly, Mr.x's ex has to allow the lodgers one month to leave.

There is no legal requirement for Mr,x's ex to give any reason for lodgers to leave her home.

Under Torts laws (interference with goods act), the legal occupant (legal tenant or owner-occupier) then has a duty to protect the former lodger's property and the former lodger must collect this within 28 days after which the legal occupant may dispose of said goods.

As a visitor, Mr.x has no legal say in what his ex does with the property.

He does have a right and a duty to protect his children's interests and dodgy idiots like the couple you have described represent a potential risk. Were I the ex, I would just tell them to # off out of my house, no explanations but if they ask, I would tell them I just do not like them and repeat the forceful rejection. If the ex is charging board by the person rather than the room, she/he will lose greater income than simple room rate. Either way, it may behove Mr.x to find out how much that is and offer to pay this to the ex until such time as more suitable lodgers are found.

a reply to: DoctorBluechip

In that situation you are getting references for a hired position in your home. Mr x doesn't live there full time and sounds like he is trying to be in charge when according to the scenario he is not. The mom didn't want mr x doing checks but he took it upon himself to try. Mr x should proceed by letting the mom who lives there and has the kids deal with it.

a reply to: teapot

Best answer so far

originally posted by: DoctorBluechip
a reply to: teapot

Best answer so far

So best answer is because mr x gets what he wants in the house he has no legal say in?

originally posted by: 1Angrylightbulb
a reply to: DoctorBluechip

In that situation you are getting references for a hired position in your home. Mr x doesn't live there full time and sounds like he is trying to be in charge when according to the scenario he is not. The mom didn't want mr x doing checks but he took it upon himself to try. Mr x should proceed by letting the mom who lives there and has the kids deal with it.

You mean the neglectful one who did not take any references in the first place . Mr.x just wants to know who they are , but so far the 2 stories originally given haven't checked out , at all . That said ,where does the other lodger stand on it , as in , knowing who they share a house with too

a reply to: 1Angrylightbulb

No point baiting . Best answer because it lists several options going forwards for several parties .

a reply to: DoctorBluechip

And that's why I said if he doesn't like it move the kids in with him. Why can't Mr x do that? Maybe he doesn't have custody? Either way Mr x cant make them move out or give him info. Only the mom, his ex, can do that.