Partner of tenant not on the agreement

aneary

markf340 wrote: »

Well you can, sort of. Any one of the tenants on a joint tenancy can terminate it and then go to the landlord and see if they can negotiate a new sole AST. Obviously outside the fixed period.

So if you are on good terms with the landlord you tell them what you are doing, and add the partner to the agreement. If it all goes horribly wrong you terminate the agreement and negotiate a new AST with the landlord. The only downside is if you are going through a lettings agent everyone involved would get stung for £££ in fees for each transaction. Much less so with many private landlords.

If thats doesn't work then you can try the tried and trusted methods of burning their childhood teddy bear, driving over their phone, or coping off with their best friend!

Outside of the fixed period that could be 12 months anyone who moves in with me will not be on a tenancy agreement. I happy to be responsible for the rent and all the bills in return for control on how long I share my bed with someone.

G_M

markf340 wrote: »

Yes you can enforce, you can issue a section 21 notice.

The standard NLA AST contract I use has a clause "Not to assign or sublet or part with or share posession of the property or any part of it or to allow the property to be occupied by more than the maximum number of permitted occupiers". The latter number is explicitly stated in the contract, and is the same as the number of tenants on the contract.

These are two totally seperate legal channels.

Yes, you can evict via a S21 if the tenancy is not in a fixed term. For that, your NLA clause is unecessary and irrelevant. No reason is needed for a S21 eviction and the clause you quote adds nothing.

If you wish to evict for breach of the clause, eg during a fixed term, I assume you'd be relying on a S8 ground 12 eviction? This, as you know, is discretionary, and you'd find pursuading a judge to grant you possession based on a partner moving in a hard uphill struggle - tenancy clause or no clause.

All the clause does is assist you to perhaps bamboozle the tenant, who might not be familiar with the law and think it has more weight than in fact it does.

It's kind of on a par with those "must employ professional cleaners at the end of the tenancy" clauses.

SuzieSue

What about insurance? I would have thought that most insurance companies would require all permanent occupants of the property to be on the tenancy agreement?

FBaby

This, as you know, is discretionary, and you'd find pursuading a judge to grant you possession based on a partner moving in a hard uphill struggle - tenancy clause or no clause.

Even if you can prove it's a condition of the mortgage? Is the judge suggesting that it is ok to break such a contractual arrangement with a lender knowingly.

Comms69

FBaby wrote: »

Even if you can prove it's a condition of the mortgage? Is the judge suggesting that it is ok to break such a contractual arrangement with a lender knowingly.

But the LL didn't break it knowingly and the tenant isn't party to that contract.

Comms69

SuzieSue wrote: »

What about insurance? I would have thought that most insurance companies would require all permanent occupants of the property to be on the tenancy agreement?

Buildings insurance? I'd be surprised.


Children aren't named on a tenancy

G_M

FBaby wrote: »

Even if you can prove it's a condition of the mortgage? Is the judge suggesting that it is ok to break such a contractual arrangement with a lender knowingly.

Judges don't like evicting tenants withoutt very good reasons, and if rent is paid and thats the only breach I seriously doubt he'd evict.

And the LL's contract with his lender is a seperate issue. Plus, finally, the LL did not breach the mortgage condition since when granting the tenancy all occuants were listed as tenants. It was a subsequent act, by a 3rd party, and outside the LL's control, that led to the apparant mortgage breach.

Any CC judges reading this? Would you grant possession........?