Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • CliftonClimbs
    • By CliftonClimbs 2nd Oct 17, 9:15 AM
    • 1Posts
    • 0Thanks
    CliftonClimbs
    Partner of tenant not on the agreement
    • #1
    • 2nd Oct 17, 9:15 AM
    Partner of tenant not on the agreement 2nd Oct 17 at 9:15 AM
    Hi everyone,

    My tenant has recently informed me that their partner has moved in with them. I have a sole tenancy agreement with the tenant so their partner is not included in the agreement. I'm just wondering if I need to update the tenancy agreement to include the partner?

    The letting agency have informed me that it will cost a £350 admin fee to update the agreement! (Seems a bit extortionate, I would prefer to avoid making the tenant pay this)

    My concerns are: (1) My liability as a landlord (2) my rights to end the tenancy, and therefore evict anyone living at the property that is not on the agreement.

    What do you recommend I do?
    Thanks!
Page 1
    • theartfullodger
    • By theartfullodger 2nd Oct 17, 9:38 AM
    • 9,127 Posts
    • 12,092 Thanks
    theartfullodger
    • #2
    • 2nd Oct 17, 9:38 AM
    • #2
    • 2nd Oct 17, 9:38 AM
    I knew that the government appears to want landlords to police immigration but didn't appreciate some landlords thought they needed to police entirely legal relationships as well!

    Unless the tenancy specifically denies the tenant the right to move in then tenant has every right to move his partner in. Even if tenancy denies that right you've pretty much no chance of evicting them for doing so (what judge would side with landlord for keeping love-birds apart?).

    No need to change tenancy agreement. Since ASTs are available **free** see e.g.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/model-agreement-for-a-shorthold-assured-tenancy
    - suggest you anyway ditch your agent: £350 to print a few sheets is extortionate.

    If you had a new tenancy then you would need to (as in the fines for not complying go up to £3k) do "right to rent" checks and would be best to do new inventory, photos, return deposit, take new deposit, protect, serve (serve as opposed to happen to have) EPC, GSC & "How to Rent" booklet or any s21 would be invalid.

    Do nothing. Easier, less work, quicker and easier to evict if there are problems.
    • aneary
    • By aneary 2nd Oct 17, 10:02 AM
    • 819 Posts
    • 704 Thanks
    aneary
    • #3
    • 2nd Oct 17, 10:02 AM
    • #3
    • 2nd Oct 17, 10:02 AM
    Maybe your tenant doesn't want the tenancy updated.

    I wouldn't I couldn't boot them out if I had the tenancy updated.
    • G_M
    • By G_M 2nd Oct 17, 10:45 AM
    • 42,359 Posts
    • 49,220 Thanks
    G_M
    • #4
    • 2nd Oct 17, 10:45 AM
    • #4
    • 2nd Oct 17, 10:45 AM
    Next time you do an iinspection (remember to take a cake and ask them to put the kettle on) bring up the option (yes, it's an option - they can refuse) of adding partner to the tenancy.

    Why pay £350 for something you can do yourself for free?

    But as said above, if you & they agree and you isue a new tenancy, in joint names, you'll have to do all the associated paperwork:

    * release/return the deposit for old tenancy
    * take new deposit and re-register
    * re-issue EPC, gas reprt etc
    * re-do inventory as of start date of new tenancy
    etc

    So instead, add the partner's name to the existing tenancy via a Deed of Assignment. Google forr examples.

    https://www.landlordzone.co.uk/information/assignment-of-a-residential-tenancy
    Last edited by G_M; 02-10-2017 at 11:01 AM.
    • PasturesNew
    • By PasturesNew 2nd Oct 17, 10:52 AM
    • 61,026 Posts
    • 356,415 Thanks
    PasturesNew
    • #5
    • 2nd Oct 17, 10:52 AM
    • #5
    • 2nd Oct 17, 10:52 AM
    I'd leave it. You've got an agreement with the tenant - their partner moving in is of no real consequence until such time as there's a problem - and there probably won't be.

    As it is, you have one person who is liable for everything. If they split and it's in one name that person will stay (as they will wave the document about and say "MY house... you leave").... if there are two on it, either could leave, complicating the likely scenarios.

    Their partner has no rights to stay in the property as it is....

    And it's free to do nothing.

    See how it goes.... she might boot him out in January and get another one next year. You don't need to become involved in their future fallings out if you keep it as it is.
    • LEJC
    • By LEJC 2nd Oct 17, 10:58 AM
    • 9,041 Posts
    • 59,569 Thanks
    LEJC
    • #6
    • 2nd Oct 17, 10:58 AM
    • #6
    • 2nd Oct 17, 10:58 AM
    OP.....I assume you are happy for your tenant to move in their partner or is this not the case?
    frugal October...£41.82 of £40 food shopping spend for the 2 of us!

    2017 toiletries challenge 170 out 144 in ...£18.64 spend
    • markf340
    • By markf340 2nd Oct 17, 11:42 AM
    • 5 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    markf340
    • #7
    • 2nd Oct 17, 11:42 AM
    • #7
    • 2nd Oct 17, 11:42 AM
    The AST I use is from the national landlords association (free if you are a member). It states the name of the Tenants and the maximum number of people that can stay there, which defaults to the number of tenants named on the document. This is to at least control the situation the OP describes.

    The main issue is your BTL mortgage. Every Mortgage I have had says that everyone aged over 18, who is going to live in the house, has to be named on the tenancy agreement. This is so the mortgage privider can use the AST legislation to evict the occupiers at the end of a fixed period, or as part of a statutory periodic period, should you default on your mortgage.

    I have even had to add children who have reached 18 to an AST contract so that I'm squeeky clean on this point.

    Edit, I would add that the comment above that the Tenant has "every right to mover their partner in" if it doesn't state they can't in the AST. AST's generally have a no sub let clause. Stopping anyone moving in without the LL's agreement. Without this you could find one person renting the place, and then bringing in 3 mates and suddenly you have an unlicensed HMO!
    Last edited by markf340; 02-10-2017 at 11:48 AM.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 2nd Oct 17, 1:00 PM
    • 1,322 Posts
    • 1,073 Thanks
    Comms69
    • #8
    • 2nd Oct 17, 1:00 PM
    • #8
    • 2nd Oct 17, 1:00 PM
    The AST I use is from the national landlords association (free if you are a member). It states the name of the Tenants and the maximum number of people that can stay there, which defaults to the number of tenants named on the document. This is to at least control the situation the OP describes.

    The main issue is your BTL mortgage. Every Mortgage I have had says that everyone aged over 18, who is going to live in the house, has to be named on the tenancy agreement. This is so the mortgage privider can use the AST legislation to evict the occupiers at the end of a fixed period, or as part of a statutory periodic period, should you default on your mortgage.

    I have even had to add children who have reached 18 to an AST contract so that I'm squeeky clean on this point.

    Edit, I would add that the comment above that the Tenant has "every right to mover their partner in" if it doesn't state they can't in the AST. AST's generally have a no sub let clause. Stopping anyone moving in without the LL's agreement. Without this you could find one person renting the place, and then bringing in 3 mates and suddenly you have an unlicensed HMO!
    Originally posted by markf340


    Moving a partner in is NOT sub letting. And a tenancy clause preventing this is pretty much impossible to enforce.......
    • markf340
    • By markf340 2nd Oct 17, 6:52 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    markf340
    • #9
    • 2nd Oct 17, 6:52 PM
    • #9
    • 2nd Oct 17, 6:52 PM
    Yes you can enforce, you can issue a section 21 notice.

    The standard NLA AST contract I use has a clause "Not to assign or sublet or part with or share posession of the property or any part of it or to allow the property to be occupied by more than the maximum number of permitted occupiers". The latter number is explicitly stated in the contract, and is the same as the number of tenants on the contract.

    I don't get into any discussions about relationships or the like. I just point out that it's a requirement of my lenders that everyone over 18 who lives there, is named on the tenancy agreement. If they don't want to do that, then unfortunately I can't rent them a house. So in this case I'm not unreasonably with holding permission as I would have to breach a covenant in the properties mortgage to give my permission.

    I have other covenents in some of my mortgages that have to be followed. For example I have more than one mortgage that only permits a single family unit and not sharers. So if i rent to one person and it becomes a house full of sharers I have to say goodbye.

    Similarly all my mortgages say you can't have fixed periods on the AST's of more than 12 months. I've had many cases where the tenant would like longer, and I would like longer, but i can't because of this condition. But hay ho, thats the envelope I have to work in.

    As I manage the properties myself I don't charge for a new contract. I just charge them at cost for a tenant reference, so i have established the identity of who lives there, and a new myDeposits registration for the new contract. Comes to about £45. I also tell them all this when they move in.

    I've never found it a big deal in 15 years of renting multiple properties.
    • markf340
    • By markf340 2nd Oct 17, 7:09 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    markf340
    Maybe your tenant doesn't want the tenancy updated.

    I wouldn't I couldn't boot them out if I had the tenancy updated.
    Originally posted by aneary
    Well you can, sort of. Any one of the tenants on a joint tenancy can terminate it and then go to the landlord and see if they can negotiate a new sole AST. Obviously outside the fixed period.

    So if you are on good terms with the landlord you tell them what you are doing, and add the partner to the agreement. If it all goes horribly wrong you terminate the agreement and negotiate a new AST with the landlord. The only downside is if you are going through a lettings agent everyone involved would get stung for £££ in fees for each transaction. Much less so with many private landlords.

    If thats doesn't work then you can try the tried and trusted methods of burning their childhood teddy bear, driving over their phone, or coping off with their best friend!
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 3rd Oct 17, 10:36 AM
    • 1,322 Posts
    • 1,073 Thanks
    Comms69
    Yes you can enforce, you can issue a section 21 notice.

    The standard NLA AST contract I use has a clause "Not to assign or sublet or part with or share posession of the property or any part of it or to allow the property to be occupied by more than the maximum number of permitted occupiers". The latter number is explicitly stated in the contract, and is the same as the number of tenants on the contract.

    I don't get into any discussions about relationships or the like. I just point out that it's a requirement of my lenders that everyone over 18 who lives there, is named on the tenancy agreement. If they don't want to do that, then unfortunately I can't rent them a house. So in this case I'm not unreasonably with holding permission as I would have to breach a covenant in the properties mortgage to give my permission.

    I have other covenents in some of my mortgages that have to be followed. For example I have more than one mortgage that only permits a single family unit and not sharers. So if i rent to one person and it becomes a house full of sharers I have to say goodbye.

    Similarly all my mortgages say you can't have fixed periods on the AST's of more than 12 months. I've had many cases where the tenant would like longer, and I would like longer, but i can't because of this condition. But hay ho, thats the envelope I have to work in.

    As I manage the properties myself I don't charge for a new contract. I just charge them at cost for a tenant reference, so i have established the identity of who lives there, and a new myDeposits registration for the new contract. Comes to about £45. I also tell them all this when they move in.

    I've never found it a big deal in 15 years of renting multiple properties.
    Originally posted by markf340
    So you're not enforcing the clause, but rather evicting.... But yes otherwise I agree
    • aneary
    • By aneary 3rd Oct 17, 10:43 AM
    • 819 Posts
    • 704 Thanks
    aneary
    Well you can, sort of. Any one of the tenants on a joint tenancy can terminate it and then go to the landlord and see if they can negotiate a new sole AST. Obviously outside the fixed period.

    So if you are on good terms with the landlord you tell them what you are doing, and add the partner to the agreement. If it all goes horribly wrong you terminate the agreement and negotiate a new AST with the landlord. The only downside is if you are going through a lettings agent everyone involved would get stung for £££ in fees for each transaction. Much less so with many private landlords.

    If thats doesn't work then you can try the tried and trusted methods of burning their childhood teddy bear, driving over their phone, or coping off with their best friend!
    Originally posted by markf340
    Outside of the fixed period that could be 12 months anyone who moves in with me will not be on a tenancy agreement. I happy to be responsible for the rent and all the bills in return for control on how long I share my bed with someone.
    • G_M
    • By G_M 3rd Oct 17, 10:51 AM
    • 42,359 Posts
    • 49,220 Thanks
    G_M
    Yes you can enforce, you can issue a section 21 notice.

    The standard NLA AST contract I use has a clause "Not to assign or sublet or part with or share posession of the property or any part of it or to allow the property to be occupied by more than the maximum number of permitted occupiers". The latter number is explicitly stated in the contract, and is the same as the number of tenants on the contract.
    Originally posted by markf340
    These are two totally seperate legal channels.

    Yes, you can evict via a S21 if the tenancy is not in a fixed term. For that, your NLA clause is unecessary and irrelevant. No reason is needed for a S21 eviction and the clause you quote adds nothing.

    If you wish to evict for breach of the clause, eg during a fixed term, I assume you'd be relying on a S8 ground 12 eviction? This, as you know, is discretionary, and you'd find pursuading a judge to grant you possession based on a partner moving in a hard uphill struggle - tenancy clause or no clause.

    All the clause does is assist you to perhaps bamboozle the tenant, who might not be familiar with the law and think it has more weight than in fact it does.

    It's kind of on a par with those "must employ professional cleaners at the end of the tenancy" clauses.
    Last edited by G_M; 03-10-2017 at 10:56 AM.
    • SuzieSue
    • By SuzieSue 3rd Oct 17, 11:14 AM
    • 3,703 Posts
    • 3,985 Thanks
    SuzieSue
    What about insurance? I would have thought that most insurance companies would require all permanent occupants of the property to be on the tenancy agreement?
    • FBaby
    • By FBaby 3rd Oct 17, 2:32 PM
    • 16,149 Posts
    • 40,070 Thanks
    FBaby
    This, as you know, is discretionary, and you'd find pursuading a judge to grant you possession based on a partner moving in a hard uphill struggle - tenancy clause or no clause.
    Even if you can prove it's a condition of the mortgage? Is the judge suggesting that it is ok to break such a contractual arrangement with a lender knowingly.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 3rd Oct 17, 2:42 PM
    • 1,322 Posts
    • 1,073 Thanks
    Comms69
    Even if you can prove it's a condition of the mortgage? Is the judge suggesting that it is ok to break such a contractual arrangement with a lender knowingly.
    Originally posted by FBaby


    But the LL didn't break it knowingly and the tenant isn't party to that contract.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 3rd Oct 17, 2:43 PM
    • 1,322 Posts
    • 1,073 Thanks
    Comms69
    What about insurance? I would have thought that most insurance companies would require all permanent occupants of the property to be on the tenancy agreement?
    Originally posted by SuzieSue
    Buildings insurance? I'd be surprised.


    Children aren't named on a tenancy
    • G_M
    • By G_M 3rd Oct 17, 3:52 PM
    • 42,359 Posts
    • 49,220 Thanks
    G_M
    Even if you can prove it's a condition of the mortgage? Is the judge suggesting that it is ok to break such a contractual arrangement with a lender knowingly.
    Originally posted by FBaby
    Judges don't like evicting tenants withoutt very good reasons, and if rent is paid and thats the only breach I seriously doubt he'd evict.

    And the LL's contract with his lender is a seperate issue. Plus, finally, the LL did not breach the mortgage condition since when granting the tenancy all occuants were listed as tenants. It was a subsequent act, by a 3rd party, and outside the LL's control, that led to the apparant mortgage breach.

    Any CC judges reading this? Would you grant possession........?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,902Posts Today

8,612Users online

Martin's Twitter