Shared house - Only one name on contract

Sharon87

My LA is refusing to put everyone's name on the contract, who they've referenced. One person in the house signed it originally as he was the only person available at the time (everyone else was at work/out). I'm trying to get at least my name onto it, if not everyones.

Is it legal for just one person's name to be on the contract when there are 5 people living in the house? Or is it just unadvisable? I want everyone's name on the contract in case there are problems with the other tennants (not paying rent.etc), because then the person liable is the only one on the contract. I've spoken to the LA and it seems as if he may be able to put my name on. He just seems to be lazy and money driven.

Any advice?

iscrimger

It's not illegal. Normally a tenancy agreement will state only those stated on the agreement may stay at the property. By having more people there you are taking the risk by breaking the agreement - but as you've said the LA knows and hasn't changed it.

By law a tenancy agreement must be signed on the specified date by all parties named. As only one person was available, they have taken the risk themselves. The fact you said everyone else was at 'work/out' is slightly concerning that living arrangements were not as important as 'going out'.

As it stands only the named person is liable but it depends how you pay your rent. Do you all pay separate amounts to the landlord? Or do you all pay the named person who then pays the full amount? Ideally the latter arrangement should have some form of it's own written agreement.

What should have happened is all who plan on living at the address should have been there to sign the lease.

Sharon87

iscrimger wrote: »

It's not illegal. Normally a tenancy agreement will state only those stated on the agreement may stay at the property. By having more people there you are taking the risk by breaking the agreement - but as you've said the LA knows and hasn't changed it.

By law a tenancy agreement must be signed on the specified date by all parties named. As only one person was available, they have taken the risk themselves. The fact you said everyone else was at 'work/out' is slightly concerning that living arrangements were not as important as 'going out'.

As it stands only the named person is liable but it depends how you pay your rent. Do you all pay separate amounts to the landlord? Or do you all pay the named person who then pays the full amount? Ideally the latter arrangement should have some form of it's own written agreement.

What should have happened is all who plan on living at the address should have been there to sign the lease.

I was working at the time of signing the agreement. They didn't mention the contract had to be signed by everyone on the date, only that they needed the full rent/deposit by the start date.

Everyone pays in rent to my account, which then gets paid by standing order.

We didn't have all the rooms filled by the time we signed the contract and to get the final housemate on we'll have to pay £150 to get him referenced check! (what a rip off).

What protecting will everyone lose by not having their name on the contract or being the only ones on there?

iscrimger

Only those named on the tenancy are liable for any damage or costs associated with it. For example you all move out and the LA finds something major wrong with the property - only the named person/s will be liable.

You've also picked up on another, the rent. If someone doesn't pay their share the named person/s are liable.

You'll probably find that by not having the other occupants named on the tenancy you are breaking your tenancy agreement. Mine has a clause in it which states only those named can reside at the address unless there is prior written consent and referencing by the Letting Agent. You have said they are aware - most agencies really only care about getting the rent every month. If that's happening, and there's a deposit in place then they probably won't have a problem until the rent payments stop.

It's up to you how you proceed. If you have told the agency and they are aware there are more than the named people staying there then the problem only lies with who is liable if one person doesn't pay rent. For piece of mind I'd get write to the agency about the additional occupants so they have a written record.

I'm assuming all of the occupants will have paid a deposit to you which was paid to the LA? For anyone who didn't I would have suggested they pay you a deposit and you hold that in a savings account just as a precaution should they fail to pay.

On my tenancy my flatmate and I both signed and paid half of the deposit/rent. We then pay half of everything else although I do pay for things like broadband, TV License etc as I'm too kind! I do however hold enough money for a months rent/council tax just incase they can't afford to pay one month which I can then recover at a later date.

barnaby-bear

Sharon87 wrote: »

My LA is refusing to put everyone's name on the contract, who they've referenced. One person in the house signed it originally as he was the only person available at the time (everyone else was at work/out). I'm trying to get at least my name onto it, if not everyones.

Is it legal for just one person's name to be on the contract when there are 5 people living in the house? Or is it just unadvisable? I want everyone's name on the contract in case there are problems with the other tennants (not paying rent.etc), because then the person liable is the only one on the contract. I've spoken to the LA and it seems as if he may be able to put my name on. He just seems to be lazy and money driven.

Any advice?

5 people is a house of multiple occupancy (HMO), whether each room has a lock on it may be significant. Basically HMOs (google it) come with a whole heap of extra regulation - obligations for fire doors/fire alarms/inspections/no. of toilets/kitchen space per person to avoid this LLs can rent to single households e.g. a family or "one person". The person who then lets the other people live there is effectively the person now running an HMO, so whoever signed has signed up to a whole heap of stuff and may be on the wrong side of the law. Where it comes to the deposit if the others are paying a share to the person who has signed they are also into technically being responsible for protecting it as they are subletting and the others legal come back is against the person they have their contract with ie. the named tenant.

The LL/LA doesn't want the HMO responsibility hence why they aren't letting 5 people sign as they don't want the legal responsibility i.e. not doing things properly. Collect as much evidence (emails indicating they know 5 people?), adverts advertising suitable for sharers etc....

barnaby-bear

Sharon87 wrote: »

My LA is refusing to put everyone's name on the contract, who they've referenced. One person in the house signed it originally as he was the only person available at the time (everyone else was at work/out). I'm trying to get at least my name onto it, if not everyones.

Is it legal for just one person's name to be on the contract when there are 5 people living in the house? Or is it just unadvisable? I want everyone's name on the contract in case there are problems with the other tennants (not paying rent.etc), because then the person liable is the only one on the contract. I've spoken to the LA and it seems as if he may be able to put my name on. He just seems to be lazy and money driven.

Any advice?

Two households consisting of a single person each are usually exempt from HMO regulations hence why he may be willing to put someone else on it - but they it's those two people legally running a non-legit HMO. If you put your name down you are signing up to a lot.
Even if you all signed in a legit HMO - often the contract will be joint liability so one person not paying would be for you to sort out - i.e. everyone could be pursued for the rent and they'd go for the one with the most assets/best chance of pursuing.

barnaby-bear

Sharon87 wrote: »

I was working at the time of signing the agreement. They didn't mention the contract had to be signed by everyone on the date, only that they needed the full rent/deposit by the start date.

Everyone pays in rent to my account, which then gets paid by standing order.

We didn't have all the rooms filled by the time we signed the contract and to get the final housemate on we'll have to pay £150 to get him referenced check! (what a rip off).

What protecting will everyone lose by not having their name on the contract or being the only ones on there?

The biggest liability is to those signing up to run this HMO.
For the others they are effectively lodgers with the official tenants (because they will be resident landlords) and as such they'll have lodger protection (very little) but will be able to leave with little notice or be kicked out fast if needed. Even if nothing on paper they will have an implied contract with the official tenant.