Couple renting, credit of one good, the other bad

subjecttocontract

You are looking at this situation from the tenants perpective.

Lets look at it from the landlords perspective: All persons over 18 should be included on the AST. You can decide between you who pays the rent, that is of no concern to the landlord as you are jointly responsible. But if you split up and you move out the landlord would be left with a tenant who ordinarily he probably wouldn't let the property to......because of the credit history.

You could argue it would be the same for a married couple except the partner left at the property would not necessarily have a CCJ against them.

There is a big shortfall of rented accomodation around the country ie there are more tenants than properties. Landlords like to minimise risk and by restricting their letting to tenants without CCJ's that goes part way to reducing the risk of something going wrong.

subjecttocontract

blue_monkey wrote: »

Can't you rent it yourself and your partner move in later? So AST is in your name? Keep her out of it? There would be no need to mention her if you are paying and can afford it, would there?

.

Absolutely not....quickest way to get evicted. Its called moving in your mates or subletting. NOT ALLOWED.

It would soon become evident as landlords do tend to keep a close eye on their valuable assets and its normal to carry out regular inspections.

GFBrown

If I was a landlord I would prefer to take on a couple with a large combined income rather than a single person with no further support - the risk stills seems greater with the single party rather than the couple with one member having poor credit rating. It seems ludicrous that the risk depends on:

1. The couple breaking up
2. The tenant that remains in the property being the tenant with poor credit
3. That tenant not paying the rent, despite earning a decent income and working in a respectable job, because several years ago they had a CCJ placed against them

I find the way that 'credit history' is deemed to be a good representation of a person's ability to meet payments/be reliable odd. In my case, my partner has not once failed to pay his rent. His debts are tiny and he earns more than enough to meet all payments several times over. You can have CCJs against you for nominal amounts due to a mishap of administration rather than an inability to meet payments. I think a better system that takes into account many more factors needs to be instigated.

inmypocketnottheirs

GFBrown wrote: »

I think a better system that takes into account many more factors needs to be instigated.

So do I. Wholeheartedly. However until a better system is devised what options does a landlord have?

GFBrown

inmypocketnottheirs wrote: »

So do I. Wholeheartedly. However until a better system is devised what options does a landlord have?

To look at circumstances objectively when presented with the facts? Instead of a 'computer says no' ethos that seems to be in effect across the country.

blue_monkey_2

subjecttocontract wrote: »

Absolutely not....quickest way to get evicted. Its called moving in your mates or subletting. NOT ALLOWED.

It would soon become evident as landlords do tend to keep a close eye on their valuable assets and its normal to carry out regular inspections.

So, does that mean that if someone rents a place, and say, signs up for a year or longer then they cannot have a partner to live with them? What is they dd, would they have to ask the LL? What if the partner was pregnant and only just found out after, and you asked the LL if they could move in and they said no, what happens then?

Just out of interest really, I would have thought it more important that the rent was paid on time and if so then why worry about it if the place was being looked after. Does it mean if you have rented place you can;t have people stay over?

More to this renting lark than meets the eye!! I was just interested really, none of this applies to me as we can't get anywhere to rent and it was just a question really. It just does not make sense if your tenant is a good one that you would force them out to live elsewhere that's all because their partner wanted to move in. Surely the onus falls on the person who signed the AST to pay the rent then, not the partner.

subjecttocontract

I'm afraid we are now getting into a discussion on WHY renting has a few drawbacks:

So, does that mean that if someone rents a place, and say, signs up for a year or longer then they cannot have a partner to live with them? What is they dd, would they have to ask the LL?

AST's or rental contracts are normally for 6 months or 12 months. Tenants can have visitors of course but if someone is moving in permanently then they need to be on the contact and yes they do have to ask the landlord. There is likely to be a charge for a new contract that will include both people and probably a charge for a reference check.

What if the partner was pregnant and only just found out after, and you asked the LL if they could move in and they said no, what happens then?

I personally don't let to people with children.....to many problems. So, if tenant is pregnant I advise them that I will issue them that I will not be renewing the tennacy. I only ever let for 6 months so not usually a problem.....for me.

Just out of interest really, I would have thought it more important that the rent was paid on time and if so then why worry about it if the place was being looked after.

Both of these are important

Does it mean if you have rented place you can;t have people stay over?

No. But if its going to be permanent they all need to be on the AST.

Surely the onus falls on the person who signed the AST to pay the rent then, not the partner.

All parties sign the AST and they are jointly responsible.

inmypocketnottheirs

GFBrown wrote: »

To look at circumstances objectively when presented with the facts? Instead of a 'computer says no' ethos that seems to be in effect across the country.

But what are the facts and how does one assess the position fully. Hence my response would be 6 months rent in advance. When I allowing someone to live in my property I have to be 100% certain of 1) the ability to pay and 2) the will to pay. If there is a CCJ, then it makes it difficult to feel this is the case.

blue_monkey_2

OK thanks, just wondered tbh, there are so many things to consider isn't there. i just assumed that he could have a partner move in and did not realise there would be a restrction. Can I ask another question, I forgot to ask last time, if the partner wanted to move in and had bad credit then would they not be able to (pregnant or not, again, just thoughts and asking questions really)?

I know some people don't rent to people with kids, we came up against this when looking as well.

That sure has opened my eyes to the whole renting thing some more. Thanks for your time.

subjecttocontract

Can I ask another question, I forgot to ask last time, if the partner wanted to move in and had bad credit then would they not be able to (pregnant or not, again, just thoughts and asking questions really)?



Its the same situation and most landlords would say no.

In fact if you rent there are lots of things that work against you for many landlords......here are a few:

* pregnancy &/or children
* pet owners (especially cats & dogs)
* any criminal records
* poor credit history
* smokers
* people on benefits
* poor referencies
* low income
* unable to provide a guarantor
* any tenant who doesn't work full time