Does a partner have to be included on a tenancy agreement?

Emanef

Hi guys

Just after a little advice. We're looking to move and will be needing to sign a new tenancy. I'm currently on a temporary contract that's due to end shortly and will then probably do a course so will not be earning. My partner earns sufficient to cover the rent and if she was renting on her own would have no problems with credit checks.

As estate agents usually charge per person for a credit check, and I would probably need a guarantor anyway due to income, we thought it would make more sense to have the tenancy solely in her name and just pay for the credit checks for her. However, we've mentioned to an estate agent that the tenancy will be in her name and they replied with 'because we are not married legally we both have to be included on the tenancy'. We can't see any reason why I have to be included or why there would be anything in law to say so, but I thought it best to check now as we're likely to ask whatever agency we end up going through and I'd rather be in a position to respond to any such request with the correct facts.

Is the agent correct? Or is it more likely that they are just trying it on so they can charge double the admin fee (this particular agency charges three times anyone else as it is, but if we like the property we're stuck with them!)

Thanks!

Wee_Willy_Harris

The short answer is "NO", but as you said... "if we like the property we're stuck with them!"

G_M

Most tenancies do not allow subletting, and restrict adult occupants to the tenant.

Having guests is, of course, OK, but anyone else living on the premises would need to be on the agreement, so would need to be accepted.

sampa99978

I had a similar situation where I passed the credit check but my partner did not. As I could cover the rent I was put down on the contract as the tenant, and my partner was listed as a permitted occupant.

Geenie

theartfullodger wrote: »

Agent is talking b****cks...

I've 4 people in one property, one married couple & one bloke&"fiance". Neither lady is on the tenancy as they weren't about when it was signed.

It is entirely up to the Landlord who's name(s) is on the tenancy & who else is (usually) named as "permitted occupiers" or some similar wording.

However, most LLs like to get as many people on the tenancy as possible: Why? So if it all goes wrong they've got more people to chase for the money - the usual advice is go after the person most likely to be easiest to get the ££££ off. And you never know what happens with people's jobs...


Agents? How bizarre, how untypical, to find one talking rubbish...

I think you are talking b****cks theartfullodger!!

No LL with a grasp of the law and letting would ever let a property without all of the people in the property, named on the AST and joint and severally liable. It doesn't matter who has the most money and paying the rent........they will all be credit checked. The LA is correct in this case. Letting people into your property not named on an AST is quite frankly beyond anything I can say on here.


Can you state how you would evict the ladys not named on the AST who now reside in your house if they decided they wanted to stay after their partners moved out?

Wee_Willy_Harris

Geenie wrote: »

I think you are talking b****cks theartfullodger!!

No LL with a grasp of the law and letting would ever let a property without all of the people in the property, named on the AST and joint and severally liable. It doesn't matter who has the most money and paying the rent........they are all jointly liable for the costs, will be credit checked. The LA is correct in this case.

And if, for example, the OP and his solvent girlfriend were to unexpectedly "separate" tomorrow, before the tenancy sign up, only to reconcile the day after the move in?

Or are you suggesting that a tenancy agreement is a method that can be used to prevent co-habiting?

BitterAndTwisted

I think you'll find that Artful is a landlord himself so I would trust whatever he says over a poster who accuses others of talking "b****cks". You are very rude!

Geenie

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

I think you'll find that Artful is a landlord himself so I would trust whatever he says over a poster who accuses others of talking "b****cks". You are very rude!

I am not being rude, I was just quoting the phrase he stated in his post. I am a LL of 20 plus years and multiple properties. I have legal advice behind our lets and I was stating that I have never let a property without all of the adults being on the AST.

This is what all of the advice I have ever been given indicates because of liability and problems with eviction if the tenancy goes pear shape. If a "girlfriend" comes in, then a new AST is drawn up after the initial 6 months. An AST states who should be living in the place.

If you think what I have said is untrue, ie allowing people not to be named on a tenancy agreement but living full time in a property is considered a great thing by any LL Association, Letting Agency or Solicitor, then please post the information on here. I am willing to be corrected.

digitalphase

Just to add my two penneth. We moved into our old property when I was still a student, so not earning. However I was still credit checked and named on the agreement.

Soniclord

And here's my two penneth as well.

My partner previously rented a property and I was not included on the tenancy agreement as a joint tenant and if you don't want to be then you don't have to be. I was down as a 'permitted' occupier which meant I could live there but had no rights to stay in the property should she give up the tenancy.

The agent cannot make you be on the tenancy agreement, and if they want to play silly buggars just ignore them and send your other half in and you stay out of the way and get her to tell them it's just her taking the house because you've 'split up'. They literally can't do anything about it.. Then just move in and go into the office with your other half after a couple of weeks and tell them you decided to try again and because she will have signed the tenancy agreement and the tenancy will have started you can then be added onto the tenancy agreement as a 'permitted' occupier rather than a joint tenant.

I know that for a fact by the way due to my other half renting a property shortly after I met her. I then moved in and was put onto the tenancy agreement as said 'permitted' occupier.

Good luck and let us know the outcome!

P.S) You can always be added as a 'permitted' occupier anyway before the tenancy starts but most (ALL) agents try it on bigtime what with utterly unenforceable rules and regulations that would never stand up in court should they ever take it that far.

Emanef

Thanks for the replies guys!

So basically there is no legal reason why I should be a joint tenant but should be included on the tenancy as a permitted occupier (as will the cat need to be!) and the only sticking point could be a stubborn landlord/letting agent insisting on it to allow them to pursue multiple persons for unpaid rent/to they can over charge on their admin fees.

Thanks for the help, will feedback when we move! :beer: