someone else is paying rent...

always_sunny

are there any rules about accepting payments from someone else?

Mark is renting a flat from EA and the AST is under his name only
Sarah (not on the AST) pays the deposit, rent, etc

Should the deposit be registered under Sarah? Who's getting receipts?

marksoton

always_sunny wrote: »

are there any rules about accepting payments from someone else?

Mark is renting a flat from EA and the AST is under his name only
Sarah (not on the AST) pays the deposit, rent, etc

Should the deposit be registered under Sarah? Who's getting receipts?

I don't know Mark or Sarah, presumably you do....

What a bizarre question....

theartfullodger

Unless the tenancy agreement says otherwise I think it is OK to accept rent from anyone. However both my last (Scottish tenancy) says tenant must pay

2. THE RENT

2.1 The rent is £ xx pounds zero pence per calendar month payable by the tenant by standing order into Mr Artful's Bank Account, BBBBBBB Building Society, Sort code 12-34-56, Account number 78901234 in advance so as to be received on the nnth day of each month.

-and the government model agreement
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/model-agreement-for-a-shorthold-assured-tenancy
- says tenant pays also

Section C: Tenant’s obligations

Guidance Note: This section sets out the Tenant’s obligations under this
agreement. It is important that the tenant complies with the obligations set out in
this agreement as failure to do so may result in the tenant being evicted from the
property.

1 PAYMENT OF RENT

The Tenant must pay the rent in advance, on or before the dates agreed ..etc etc etc....

- so I guess that would need modifying.. (or landlord could theoretically sue tenant for non-payment of rent??).
..
For deposits it's in Housing Act 2004 s213
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/section/213

...etc etc etc....
(5) A landlord who has received such a tenancy deposit must give the tenant and any relevant person such information relating to—
(a) the authorised scheme applying to the deposit,
(b) compliance by the landlord with the initial requirements of the scheme in relation to the deposit, and
(c) the operation of provisions of this Chapter in relation to the deposit,
as may be prescribed.......
etc etc etc...
...
(10) In this section—
“prescribed” means prescribed by an order made by the appropriate national authority;
“property” means moveable property;
“relevant person” means any person who, in accordance with arrangements made with the tenant, paid the deposit on behalf of the tenant.

So Sarah is a "relevant person" & I think if deposit not handled correctly can sue & is required to get PI etc....

Some councils pay deposits, more usually "guarantee" deposit, no money changing hands at start - and have taken legal action over deposits themselves.
.
see
https://www.mydeposits.co.uk/landlords/faqs?page=2
&
http://nearlylegal.co.uk/2015/04/deposits-penalties-and-discretions/

Receipts sounds like cash: Of course give receipts if cash (both landlord & payer & tenant should all sign & get copies..), but bank transfer so much easier...

Is Mark Sarah's kept toy-boy & being set up in a wee love-nest for exhausting afternoons?? Dream on guys, dream on....

Pixie5740

Deposits are protected under the tenant's (or sometimes lead tenant's) name.

Mark is most likely renting from a landlord who uses an agent to manage the let for him/her.

always_sunny

the employer (Sarah) has paid the deposit and rent for Mark...
Deposit should go back to Sarah so it should be under her name?

I am more interesting in whether there should be a record of both names for accounting/banking.

marksoton

always_sunny wrote: »

the employer (Sarah) has paid the deposit and rent for Mark...
Deposit should go back to Sarah so it should be under her name?

I am more interesting in whether there should be a record of both names for accounting/banking.

Well yes. What you describe is subsistence. And HMRC will take a very dim view of it being done the way you describe.

kinger101

marksoton wrote: »

Well yes. What you describe is subsistence. And HMRC will take a very dim view of it being done the way you describe.

There's nothing wrong with it provided;

(a) it is necessary for the job (e.g., school caretaker); or
(b) it is taxed as a benefit in kind (including utilities etc).

marksoton

kinger101 wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with it provided;

(a) it is necessary for the job (e.g., school caretaker); or
(b) it is taxed as a benefit in kind (including utilities etc).

It's not quite as simple as that though.

In my line of work iv'e been able to claim subsistence tax free and also claim mileage from home to work. Most people can't.

always_sunny

what about a more simpler scenario?

A Parent paying deposit/rent for a child when out of town in uni?
My concern is about money landing on the account from a person not on the lease...or is that nothing to worry about?

kinger101

marksoton wrote: »

It's not quite as simple as that though.

In my line of work iv'e been able to claim subsistence tax free and also claim mileage from home to work. Most people can't.

For HMRC's perspective, it's either non-taxable, or taxable. They'll only tax a dim view if it's the latter and tax isn't paid.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/323572/hs202.pdf

I suspect it's taxable in this case, as the employer would normally own the accommodation where it's customary to provide it.

marksoton

always_sunny wrote: »

what about a more simpler scenario?

A Parent paying deposit/rent for a child when out of town in uni?
My concern is about money landing on the account from a person not on the lease...or is that nothing to worry about?

Stop messing around with scenarios and you might get an accurate answer!

kinger101 wrote: »

For HMRC's perspective, it's either non-taxable, or taxable. They'll only tax a dim view if it's the latter and tax isn't paid.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/323572/hs202.pdf

I suspect it's taxable in this case, as the employer would normally own the accommodation where it's customary to provide it.

I'm not disagreeing with you but you're assuming it's live in.

In my case my employer provided funds tax free that allowed me to rent a second property. My point is there was due process and i had to declare i had a formal arrangement at my primary residence.