Not on Contract of New House Share

youngandgullible

Hi Everyone,
I have paid the deposit and the first months rent of a room in a house in London I am moving into on Saturday, There are three of us in the house, however the landlord insists only 2 names go on the contract (I have not yet met the landlord, but will on saturday) The room I will be moving into was previously a living room.
Just wondering whether anyone had any idea why this would be? Is my name on the contract neccesary?
The only documentation i've had so far is a short email stating the deposit was recieved.
Any help is appreciated!
Thanks

booksurr

are you paying rent for a specific room and have access to the rest of the house or are you paying 1/3 of the rent for the whole house? I assume you LL does NOT live in the property with you ?

the first reaction is the LL may be avoiding crossing the threshold where the house is classed as a Home in Multiple Occupation (HMO)- some (not all) councils set this at 3 households and require the LL to spend ££££ on installing extra facilities and safety arrangements

unless you are on the tenancy agreement you have a very difficult position if anything crops up. You should either force the issue and get on the contract or be prepared to walk away and simply not move in at all (and probably lose some of your deposit but that is better than not being on the contract)

dgtazzman

If his name isn't on the contract, I don't see how the LL could legally withhold any deposit...

Does indeed sound fishy to me, I'd be inclined to look for other accommodation.

booksurr

dgtazzman wrote: »

If his name isn't on the contract, I don't see how the LL could legally withhold any deposit...
.

there is a verbal contract in place - consideration has been exchanged so failure to take up the tenancy would be a unilateral breach giving grounds for the LL to seek compensation

chanz4

booksurr wrote: »

there is a verbal contract in place - consideration has been exchanged so failure to take up the tenancy would be a unilateral breach giving grounds for the LL to seek compensation

nothing signed, no cotract

jjlandlord

booksurr wrote: »

there is a verbal contract in place - consideration has been exchanged so failure to take up the tenancy would be a unilateral breach giving grounds for the LL to seek compensation

But then equally the OP must be on the written contract or get a full refund.

bris

chanz4 wrote: »

nothing signed, no cotract

You quite clearly know nothing about contracts and how they are formed.

The LL however is flaunting the HMO laws.

BigAunty

Could the suppression of the third person from the contract be related to HMO legislation? House in Multiple Occupancy (properties shared by unrelated household members) can be subject to much stricter rules and which sometimes include having to apply for a licence or where the landlord is responsible for paying the council tax, rather than the tenant.

Check the HMO rules in your local area to see whether the landlord is trying to sidestep HMO legislation. Otherwise, the landlord is perhaps unnecessarily sensitive about appearing to overcrowd their property (but I believe the actual housing legislation around overcrowding in the private sector is quite relaxed).

The absence of a tenancy agreement doesn't affect your housing rights, though obviously verbal agreements are harder to operate than a written agreement. My understanding is that payment and acceptance of rent creates the tenancy. Check with Shelter, though.