Who to name on tenancy

john_howard_fisher

Hi all

A couple plus one kid want to rent house. woman unemployed and has poor history (used reference agency) but insists on being on tenancy. man working good history says he will pay 100% rent.

problem is if they split then he will refuse to pay. (has happened to people i know)

if they split and both on tenancy then she stays plus kid in house without paying rent as 100% man pay? if they split and she's not on the tenancy then what?

what to do? who should be named on tenancy?

help mse's

McKneff

She insists does she, youre the landlord, tell her to take a hike. You decide who and who doesnt go on the tenancy.

Personally, I would put it in his name. For all the reasons you have given.

If she doesnt like it tell her to find somewhere else to rent.

may_fair

john_howard_fisher wrote: »

Hi all

A couple plus one kid want to rent house. woman unemployed and has poor history (used reference agency) but insists on being on tenancy. man working good history says he will pay 100% rent.

As per previous comment, they are not in a position to insist on anything. If he refuses to be a named tenant (either sole or joint), then simply refuse to let to them.

problem is if they split then he will refuse to pay. (has happened to people i know)

If he's not a named tenant on the contract, they he would have no liability for the rent.

if they split and both on tenancy then she stays plus kid in house without paying rent as 100% man pay? if they split and she's not on the tenancy then what?

If the couple are joint tenants, they both remain jointly and individually liable for rent for the duration of the tenancy/until you regain vacant possession.

If the man is the sole tenant, then he alone is liable for rent. Any possession proceedings would be against the man (even if he moved out), and the bailiff would evict whoever was living there at the time (provided you hadn't granted a new tenancy to the woman meanwhile).

what to do? who should be named on tenancy?

Whatever you do, do not grant a tenancy with the woman as sole tenant. Can't see much point in a joint tenancy unless the woman can provide a guarantor.

Sharon87

I would say definitely put the man down on the tenancy, whether solely or jointly.

I have a feeling the woman wants to claim housing benefit, event with her husband working. Trying to commit benefit fraud - that's the paranoid idea anyway.

If both of them were on the tenancy and one moved out then you could still chase them both or just the one of them for the rent. As they will both be liable for the rent. I would get a guarantor for the woman though.

I had trouble finding a place when I was unemployed, it was only temporary and because I wasn't on the tenancy I couldn't claim housing benefit and so I got into debt.

john_howard_fisher

hi

thanks for the replies.

how would i word it so both are liable for the 100% of rent equally so i can chase them both for the full amount. this means i can chose which one will be easier to chase. is this legal?

bye

jamie11

If it's a joint and several agreement with both of their names on it then they are both 'the tenant'. You do not have to allocate shares from them, either one is fully responsible for the full rent.

G_M

john_howard_fisher wrote: »

hi

thanks for the replies.

how would i word it so both are liable for the 100% of rent equally so i can chase them both for the full amount. this means i can chose which one will be easier to chase. is this legal?

bye

This post for me raises other concerns.

If you need to ask this question I guess you have only a basic understanding or landlord/tenant law and procedure. If so, you probobly need help with more than just your original question.

Join a LL Association. Get a good book on renting (library? Amazon?).

Read this post and learn what's involved with renting, NOT just the issue of who to put on the tenancy.

john_howard_fisher

thanks for the replies

G_M wrote: »

Read this post and learn what's involved with renting, NOT just
the issue of who to put on the tenancy.

appreciate the advise + link

Doom_and_Gloom

Sharon87 wrote: »

I would say definitely put the man down on the tenancy, whether solely or jointly.

I have a feeling the woman wants to claim housing benefit, even with her husband working. Trying to commit benefit fraud - that's the paranoid idea anyway.

If both of them were on the tenancy and one moved out then you could still chase them both or just the one of them for the rent. As they will both be liable for the rent. I would get a guarantor for the woman though.

I had trouble finding a place when I was unemployed, it was only temporary and because I wasn't on the tenancy I couldn't claim housing benefit and so I got into debt.

They may not be trying to commit benefit fraud by claiming HB/LHA even though her partner is working. If you are on a low income then you can claim HB/LHA legally even though you are working. I know this as my partner and I claim LHA even though my parter works. I had to be named on the tenancy to be able to claim with my partner. If only my partner had been named on the tenancy we wouldn't be able to claim LHA as a couple and wouldn't be able to afford to rent.

You do not have to be unemployed to claim HB/LHA!

real1314

Doom_and_Gloom wrote: »

They may not be trying to commit benefit fraud by claiming HB/LHA even though her partner is working. If you are on a low income then you can claim HB/LHA legally even though you are working. I know this as my partner and I claim LHA even though my parter works. I had to be named on the tenancy to be able to claim with my partner. If only my partner had been named on the tenancy we wouldn't be able to claim LHA as a couple and wouldn't be able to afford to rent.

You do not have to be unemployed to claim HB/LHA!

The bit in bold is wrong. It could be just you, could be just your partner or could be both of you on the tenancy. You can still claim HB/LHA as a couple.

Check it out on the benefits board/with your council. It's not even something that results in extra questions/checks. It's pretty much irrelevant. :cool:

Doom_and_Gloom

We were told that we both had to be on the tenancy to claim as a couple. As it is I prefer to be on the tenancy as my partner is hopeless with money meaning the rent goes out of my account. If he had been the only one named it would have to go out of his and that would most likely end up in a non-payment of rent and possibly getting chucked out. My partner is autistic and some things just do not make sense to him no matter how hard you try.

Anyway they may want her on it for equal legal rights, to claim as a couple etc. There could be many reasons. My point was that Sharon87 shouldn't be so quick to judge and think they may be up to something illegal.