We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Boyfriend not on TA
Comments
-
poppysarah wrote: »So if she had a baby would she also be subletting?
If you can guarantee me a baby that will contribute to the rent/ bills and has the dexterity to work a house key, I will willingly forgo my 'child-free by choice' status!! :rotfl:Declutterbug-in-progress.⭐️⭐️⭐️ ⭐️⭐️0 -
If you can guarantee me a baby that will contribute to the rent/ bills and has the dexterity to work a house key, I will willingly forgo my 'child-free by choice' status!! :rotfl:
A baby might contribute via entitlement to tax credits and they are very good at playing with those big chunky keys ...
But yeah babies don't do housework, never put the seat down, and can make a right mess everywhere...0 -
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
Firstly, the OP states in her first post...
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.
I have read from the post that the OP wants her boyfriend to move in lock stock and barrel at some stage. So where is the LL not doing their duty in making this legal and above board?!!:rolleyes:
I am not sure what the query is here?! Any LL in their right mind knows that any body living in their property needs to be on the AST, so this IS the only option for a LL not wanting future problems. Not only for their protection, but also because there are countless rules that state you should have given the necessary paperwork to those people living in your house, have deposits secured, insurance in hand etc, etc etc!
I mention quite clearly that I don't think the OP should have to pay for another credit check, but I think it is perfectly reasonable to have her boyfriend pay for one, as he is an unknown quantity, and if they split up could be the one left in the place.....as countless posts on here have testified over time.
The LL is doing everything by the book, apart from charging the OP for another credit reference. But even this may be to make sure they don't have some joint credit issues not shown when she was originally taken on by herself.
I am not sure why there is such a fuss about this, as compared to what people are saying they are being charged for new rentals, the fact the LL will accept the boyfriend for such a small credit check fee and change to the AST seems good, compared to the £100's being charged elsewhere, with no security of getting the place at the end of it! Add on the OP's fee and it is still less then going through a LA!
But if she doesn't like it, the option is to go elsewhere.
"Life is difficult. Life is a series of problems. What makes life difficult is that the process of confronting and solving problems is a painful one." M Scott Peck. The Road Less Travelled.0 -
Not a lawyer but I have to disagree with a lot of what's being said about permission to stay / tenancies etc.
I'm sure I read that restrictions on partners/friends staying/moving-in was one of those things that can't be unreasonably restricted.
Off to google the subject ...0 -
shelter will have the answer.0
-
Not a lawyer but I have to disagree with a lot of what's being said about permission to stay / tenancies etc.
I'm sure I read that restrictions on partners/friends staying/moving-in was one of those things that can't be unreasonably restricted.
Off to google the subject ...
The letting agency haven't refused the OPs boyfriend, they have asked for him to be credit checked and added to the tenancy. If he wanted to move in from day one it would have been the same procedure.Declutterbug-in-progress.⭐️⭐️⭐️ ⭐️⭐️0 -
But I'm just wondering, what would happen if the boyfriend had a really, really bad credit record, or there was some other reason that put a LL off? Could a LL reasonably withold permission for someone's partner to move in on those grounds? What would be the legal position of the tenant? Could it be argued on human rights grounds (probably article 16 of the Universal declaration, regarding the right to marry and found a family, or even article 25, the right to a standard of living (including housing) for them and their family - could this also apply to someone who wanted to live with someone?). Just thinking out loud here ... I'd imagine that in reality that a tenant who caused a fuss over this would find that they'd be chucked out when it was time to renew the agreement, but I wonder what would happen if someone refused permission for a partner to move in to a rented property and it was challenged legally?0
-
I have read from the post that the OP wants her boyfriend to move in lock stock and barrel at some stage. So where is the LL not doing their duty in making this legal and above board?!!:rolleyes:
I think you've jumped the gun, if you check back what she said was -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!)so is querying whether what the LL says is fair, on principle.
Leaving aside your comments on other people's mental state , a new joint AST is not the only option. It may be the one that any particular LL prefers but it is not the *only* option. As you mention deposits are you now saying that you would want a further deposit too, if the T moved their partner in? And if so, would you suggest that the LA passes on a further admin charge for the costs of re registering the deposits?I am not sure what the query is here?! Any LL in their right mind knows that any body living in their property needs to be on the AST, so this IS the only option for a LL not wanting future problems. Not only for their protection, but also because there are countless rules that state you should have given the necessary paperwork to those people living in your house, have deposits secured, insurance in hand etc, etc etc!
If a second occupier moves in at the T's request and has straightforward "permitted occupier" status then the T is reponsible for the acts and omissions of that person, so the LL still has the same recourse as they did before.
(my emphasis) Unless I've misread your posts I don't think you did, hence my query.I mention quite clearly that I don't think the OP should have to pay for another credit check, but I think it is perfectly reasonable to have her boyfriend pay for one, as he is an unknown quantity, and if they split up could be the one left in the place.....as countless posts on here have testified over time.
You are still missing the point - are you saying that Ts should be re-credit checked on a regular basis, even when they have shown themselves to be reliable payers? She could, after all, rack up the same potential "joint credit issue" without moving him in ?The LL is doing everything by the book, apart from charging the OP for another credit reference. But even this may be to make sure they don't have some joint credit issues not shown when she was originally taken on by herself.
Think it through Geenie. If the T asked for the bf to move in just 6-8 weeks after the tenancy begins - the LA says both of them must submit to a credit check. She has, however, already paid for a check to cover her potential ability to cover the rent in full by herself: presumably, unless the T is either generous or a fool , the bf would be contributing to the living costs.If she was remaining there by herself the LA wouldn't be doing a repeat check - to do so makes absolutely no sense.I am not sure why there is such a fuss about this,
I agree- and said as much in my post. That does not mean that the LA's apparent insistence on that repeat check for the original T is fair or good practice.The LL may well end up with a month or two's void at expiry of the FT , and end up with a less reliable T to boot....But if she doesn't like it, the option is to go elsewhere.
This sort of pharting about with unecessary paperwork is what LAs excel at - keeping busy doing nothing useful, and charging both the T and the LL for doing so.0 -
I think you've jumped the gun, if you check back what she said was -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!)so is querying whether what the LL says is fair, on principle.
Leaving aside your comments on other people's mental state , a new joint AST is not the only option. It may be the one that any particular LL prefers but it is not the *only* option. As you mention deposits are you now saying that you would want a further deposit too, if the T moved their partner in? And if so, would you suggest that the LA passes on a further admin charge for the costs of re registering the deposits?
If a second occupier moves in at the T's request and has straightforward "permitted occupier" status then the T is reponsible for the acts and omissions of that person, so the LL still has the same recourse as they did before.
(my emphasis) Unless I've misread your posts I don't think you did, hence my query.
You are still missing the point - are you saying that Ts should be re-credit checked on a regular basis, even when they have shown themselves to be reliable payers? She could, after all, rack up the same potential "joint credit issue" without moving him in ?
Think it through Geenie. If the T asked for the bf to move in just 6-8 weeks after the tenancy begins - the LA says both of them must submit to a credit check. She has, however, already paid for a check to cover her potential ability to cover the rent in full by herself: presumably, unless the T is either generous or a fool , the bf would be contributing to the living costs.If she was remaining there by herself the LA wouldn't be doing a repeat check - to do so makes absolutely no sense.
I agree- and said as much in my post. That does not mean that the LA's apparent insistence on that repeat check for the original T is fair or good practice.The LL may well end up with a month or two's void at expiry of the FT , and end up with a less reliable T to boot.
This sort of pharting about with unecessary paperwork is what LAs excel at - keeping busy doing nothing useful, and charging both the T and the LL for doing so.
Blimey, we do get ourselves in some pickle on here at times tbs!!
I quote from the original post by Pepzofio.- s 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?
I deduct from this that she wants her boyfriend to move in full time at some stage. Please correct me if I am wrong from her wording! Is she not saying that at a later stage she wants to move a partner in under the current agreement, which is in her name only to rent the place?!
I have stated quite clearly that I think it is unreasonable to charge her for a new credit check. I wouldn't going by her record. But that is not to say that LA's will not insist on it, as they do with so many things that earn them money for nothing.
I know that a joint AST is not the only option, but I doubt there are many LL's who would not insist on one, because to not do so is plain daft! And the OP took on a tenancy agreeing it was only for her living there full time.
It is not a problem to have her boyfriend stay over frequently, but to move him in as a full time occupier of the property is against her current AST. She signed it and agreed to the terms and conditions.
We can argue this point until we are blind, but I would insist on a new AST if the boyfriend moves in. I am just one private LL who does everything by the book and beyond. To protect my property and also to make sure that the tenants have been given everything they should in law.
If you can show me sites where LL's or legal eagles are saying it is not necessary to put someone moving in full time on a new AST, then I bow to their greater laid-backness!
I go by my own legal advice.
"Life is difficult. Life is a series of problems. What makes life difficult is that the process of confronting and solving problems is a painful one." M Scott Peck. The Road Less Travelled.0 -
Indeed.Blimey, we do get ourselves in some pickle on here at times tbs!!
You hadn't stated your view on this in your first 2 posts , although you said in your 3rd that you had.It will probably be of help/interest to the OP that you have now answered that part of the her query....I have stated quite clearly that I think it is unreasonable to charge her for a new credit check. I wouldn't going by her record. But that is not to say that LA's will not insist on it, as they do with so many things that earn them money for nothing.
Plain daft? Permitted occupier status is a valid alternative.I know that a joint AST is not the only option, but I doubt there are many LL's who would not insist on one, because to not do so is plain daft!
:rolleyes:There is no argument about your personal choice as a LL, but your posts contain phrases such as "need an AST", & the sentence you have used above, which suggest that using PO as an option is somehow not quite legit. Permitted occupier status also comes under the heading of doing "everything by the book" and if the T and her bf were happy with that as an option then they would have been been "given everything they should in law", and your property is still protected.IWe can argue this point until we are blind, but I would insist on a new AST if the boyfriend moves in. I am just one private LL who does everything by the book and beyond. To protect my property and also to make sure that the tenants have been given everything they should in law.
As a LL, you may personally view it as preferable to add the bf to an AST as a joint T for your own property, but IMO your wording seemed to suggest that granting permitted occupier status was not a *valid* option and that simply is not the case. 0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards