Boyfriend not on TA

Pepzofio

Hi,

I'm currently renting a place privately through a LA. When I went to view the place, I was with my boyfriend, who the LA assumed would be living with me and quoted me checking fees for the two of us.

I explained that he would not be living there (as he's living at home til he's sorted his finances out!) hence would not be on the TA, but would be staying over some nights. LA said this was fine, but that if he moved in permanently it would be a breach of the TA, as he needs to be named on it (and pay for checks!) to live there. She also said that if I decided to put him on TA at a later date, we would both have to pay the fees at that point (i.e. I would pay twice!)

I've since spent a lot of time on this board, and found out about periodic tenancies, unenforceable clauses etc, etc. My two questions are:

• Is this a reasonable clause, not to allow my partner to move in at a later date as he's not on the TA? What if I had a new partner who I hadn't been with when I signed TA? (Not planning anything, but in principle, IYSWIM!)
• Ideally I'd like to go onto a periodic tenancy, but if I had to put him on the TA for him to move in, I would obviously have to renew. Is it reasonable to have to pay checking fees for myself again, if I have been resident with no issues and paid on time for a year?

Thanks,

Pepzofio

scrummy_mummy_2

In answer....he doesn't have to go onto the TA but must be noted on it (or a replacement agreement) as a permitted occupier if he permanently takes up residence (otherwise he can claim the tenancy and have certain rights over it if you die, which I'm sure you won't, but that's why!) As long as he is down as a permitted occupier and named on the TA as such the LL is covered...but the LL may not know about this point of law!

If you resign a new TA it is usual to re- ref a tenant as their original circumstances may have changed since they were originally referenced...it only takes 1 month to get fired and have no income! although it is not essential or a legal requirement to do this. Discretionary to LL.

What I would do is re reference you (would only cost a max of £35) and put boyfriend on new TA as permitted occupier...once your intial new fixed term expired, I would just let it run as periodic as you/we/BF would all be covered under the Terms of the main agreement.

Suggest this to the LL...

princeofpounds

If he does move in, there's nothing they can actually do, except terminate your tenancy at the earliest opportunity via a normal break clause.

In theory they could go to court, and ask the judge to use his discretion on the grounds that you are breaking an agreed contract, but this will take just as long and the judge probably wouldn't be interested anyway.

tbs624

scrummy_mummy wrote: »

...If you resign a new TA it is usual to re- ref a tenant as their original circumstances may have changed since they were originally referenced...it only takes 1 month to get fired and have no income! although it is not essential or a legal requirement to do this. Discretionary to LL.

Agree with your comments on permitted occupier status but on this part I have to disagree, as you seem to be missing the OP's point.

If she has already been in the property, having been referenced once ( & paid for the pleasure no doubt) why on earth should she have to undergo a further check? She will presumably have proved herself a reliable T by then with an established rent payment record.

Your argument about losing a job applies every bit as much to a T who is in situ by themselves and either remains under a periodic agreement or signs up for a further FT. Are you suggesting that Ts should have to pay for credit checks to be renewed on a 6 monthly or annual basis "just in case" things have changed?

How about the LL letting the T know if they lose their job during the tenancy too, after all that may lead the LL to default on their BTL mortgage, having used the T's rent payments to buy value food for their family

The problem with these matters Pepzofio is that if it's part of the LAs "rules" then you have to either go with it or look elsewhere. Alternatively, try to talk direct to the LL, whose name & address you are legally entitled to know, once you are signed up as a T. Totally agree with you that they should only require the bf to be credit checked: the stupid part about their suggestions is that currently you are reponsible for the entire rent by yourself and yet if your BF moved in you would be joint tenants so the LL has two of you to pursue, together and as individuals, should there be a default on rent payment. I would also expect any LA requesting a repeat check to foot the bill for it themselves/pass the costs onto the LL, who can offset it against tax.

Fire_Fox

Pepzofio wrote: »

Hi,

I'm currently renting a place privately through a LA. When I went to view the place, I was with my boyfriend, who the LA assumed would be living with me and quoted me checking fees for the two of us.

I explained that he would not be living there (as he's living at home til he's sorted his finances out!) hence would not be on the TA, but would be staying over some nights. LA said this was fine, but that if he moved in permanently it would be a breach of the TA, as he needs to be named on it (and pay for checks!) to live there. She also said that if I decided to put him on TA at a later date, we would both have to pay the fees at that point (i.e. I would pay twice!)


I've since spent a lot of time on this board, and found out about periodic tenancies, unenforceable clauses etc, etc. My two questions are:

• Is this a reasonable clause, not to allow my partner to move in at a later date as he's not on the TA? What if I had a new partner who I hadn't been with when I signed TA? (Not planning anything, but in principle, IYSWIM!)
• Ideally I'd like to go onto a periodic tenancy, but if I had to put him on the TA for him to move in, I would obviously have to renew. Is it reasonable to have to pay checking fees for myself again, if I have been resident with no issues and paid on time for a year?

Thanks,

Pepzofio

Of course it's reasonable. If your partner moves in, you would reasonably expect to supply him with his own set of keys: at that point he can be in the property unsupervised. What if you moved two people in, or three people or four people? Remember it's your flat temporarily, it's your landlord's investment that they pay the mortgage and insurance on long term.

Geenie

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Of course it's reasonable. If your partner moves in, you would reasonably expect to supply him with his own set of keys: at that point he can be in the property unsupervised. What if you moved two people in, or three people or four people? Remember it's your flat temporarily, it's your landlord's investment that they pay the mortgage and insurance on long term.

Agree. As a LL I would insist on a new AST being drawn up with both named on it. It is what legal advice would say and is a reasonable request by the LL, as they are not letting to one person now but two!

PasturesNew

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Of course it's reasonable. If your partner moves in, you would reasonably expect to supply him with his own set of keys: at that point he can be in the property unsupervised. What if you moved two people in, or three people or four people? Remember it's your flat temporarily, it's your landlord's investment that they pay the mortgage and insurance on long term.

b4lls really ... it's the tenant's HOME. And the tenant is responsible for what goes on in it and the state of it on booking-out day.

I think: b4lls. Just b4lls.

Little Hitlers.

Perhaps there needs to be a questionnaire on sexual techniques and frequency too, so the LL can judge whether there is likely to be unfair wear and tear on the bed/washing machine/over the back of the sofa too ...

Geenie

PasturesNew wrote: »

b4lls really ... it's the tenant's HOME. And the tenant is responsible for what goes on in it and the state of it on booking-out day.

I think: b4lls. Just b4lls.

Little Hitlers.

Perhaps there needs to be a questionnaire on sexual techniques and frequency too, so the LL can judge whether there is likely to be unfair wear and tear on the bed/washing machine/over the back of the sofa too ...

I think this has been misunderstood and not about what the tenant gets up to in their private life. It is one thing to have a boyfriend over every so often, but another to have that person move in permanantly and use the property as their home address.

When an AST is taken out, it is with the person named on the agreement as being the only one living there. It will also more then likely state that "the tenant hereby agrees not to assign underlet charge or part with or share possession or occupation of the property or any part thereof"

So to move someone in is breaking this agreement. It is interesting that people are quick to come down on LL's not abiding by the rules and regulations of letting, yet somehow get blinkers on when it comes to tenants not abiding by the same contract!

The aim should be to get both sides to do what they should. And this tenant needs to get her boyfriend on a new AST as the LL is insisting quite rightly in my view.

tbs624

Geenie wrote: »

I think this has been misunderstood and not about what the tenant gets up to in their private life. It is one thing to have a boyfriend over every so often, but another to have that person move in permanantly and use the property as their home address.

When an AST is taken out, it is with the person named on the agreement as being the only one living there. It will also more then likely state that "the tenant hereby agrees not to assign underlet charge or part with or share possession or occupation of the property or any part thereof"

So to move someone in is breaking this agreement. It is interesting that people are quick to come down on LL's not abiding by the rules and regulations of letting, yet somehow get blinkers on when it comes to tenants not abiding by the same contract!

The aim should be to get both sides to do what they should. And this tenant needs to get her boyfriend on a new AST as the LL is insisting quite rightly in my view.

Geenie - the OP's query was wider than that. First off, as scrummymummy pointed out, a new AST with both the OP & her bf as joint Ts is not the only option and yet the LA is presenting it as such and is insisting that both of them would have to be credit checked, despite the fact that the OP has already paid for a check on her to be completed for the initial tenancy.

In the OP's situation, I personally would not even have discussed the matter of who stayed over, and when, with an LA and maybe Pasture's objection was to the "that will be fine" bit, ie "I am LA, hear me roar - you may have sex 6 nights a week but make it seven and it's a new TA & extra fees for you to pay, my girl" .

If you have possession of a property you are entitled to treat it fully as your home for the duration and if that means having *guests* to stay then it is actually non of the LL's or LA's business until, and unless, that other person wants to move in lock, stock & barrel. There are advantages for both the original tenant and to the LA/LL in treating such a partner as having licence to occupy rather than the LA insisting on a new tenancy agreement.

The clause that you mention would, of course, have the rider "..without the consent of the LL, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld...";) , although there will be properties that have to have set limits on the number of permanent occupants.

Neither you nor FireFox commented on the re-doing of the credit check for the OP as the original tenant, which was the second of the OP's queries.

And Firefox, yes, the LL has to pay the mortgage and the insurance but let's remember that its the tenant's rental payments that enable him/her to do just that

Fire_Fox

PasturesNew wrote: »

b4lls really ... it's the tenant's HOME. And the tenant is responsible for what goes on in it and the state of it on booking-out day.

I think: b4lls. Just b4lls.

Little Hitlers.

Perhaps there needs to be a questionnaire on sexual techniques and frequency too, so the LL can judge whether there is likely to be unfair wear and tear on the bed/washing machine/over the back of the sofa too ...

I don't give a fig what the OP gets up to in her personal life - the letting agent isn't saying her boyfriend can't stay overnight or that the boyfriend can't become an official resident. But if the OP moves her partner in unofficially she is effectively subletting.

The landlord has employed an agency for a reason, an agency that makes checks into the background of the potential residents before the keys are released. The agency gave the OP fair notice of what the procedure was at the initial viewing.

poppysarah

Fire_Fox wrote: »

But if the OP moves her partner in unofficially she is effectively subletting..

So if she had a baby would she also be subletting?