My Tenant who’s a single mum wants her partner to move in with her

Hi Mohamed

I would agree in principle to him becoming a permitted occupier (not a tenant) subject to the following:-

1) That he passes formal referencing to RGI standard
2) That he signs a Deed of Guarantee for his girlfriends tenancy
3) That he pays for the RGI policy

If you have a good letting agency or you know what you are doing this should be quite straightforward to sort out.

If not see >>> http://www.property118.com/letting-supermarket-full-management/68829/
.

If you were, and still are, happy with her as a single tenant then there is no real reason to refuse that he moves in unless he is a dangerous lunatic with a history of arson...

It's also a good sign that she asks as she could just have let him move in.

Reply to the comment left by "Romain Garcin" at "11/05/2015 - 18:59":

If she has been claiming benefits these may well reduce if he moves in, hence my suggestions.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "11/05/2015 - 19:36":

"If she has been claiming benefits these may well reduce if he moves in"

Good point, Mark.

I would think it wise that everyone over 18 be on the AST. This is sometimes a condition of insurance and/or mortgage anyway, and worst case scenario is that the mum moves out, he refuses to go, and he's not on the AST.

One of mine asked the other day if he could move his buddy in, as he's finding it difficult with the rent. My chosen course of action is to request copies of the new chap's last three bank statements, a payslip, photo id, address where he's staying at the moment (grandparents, apparently). I'll then issue a new AST and re-lodge the deposit (as it can't be transferred from one tenancy to the next within the DPS).

Administrative pain in the neck but I'll then feel my end is covered.

Regards - Doug

Can anyone advise on whether the status of "permitted occupier" suggested by Mark could be challenged in court? I too would be concerned that if it came to the crunch, and the relationship broke down, so the original tenant moved out but the boyfriend refused to leave, Mohamed might face difficulties in securing possession. "Permitted occupier" sounds too much like a grey area to me.

When faced by this situation in the past, I have always insisted on starting a new AST with both tenants on the agreement. Can the original AST be cancelled by mutual agreement between Mohamed and the female tenant, and you start again?

Hi Tony,

In short the answer is yes it can be challenged in court.

If a permitted occupier remained in a property after a tenant had left, firstly you haven't been given vacant possession, secondly to evict the permitted occupier is a lot quicker than evicting a tenant as a tenant has rights and an occupier only has the right to occupy whilst the tenant is in occupation, assuming you have addressed this correctly and referenced it as a separate agreement or it is referenced within the AST.

To evict an occupier you would have to make an emergency application to the courts for an interim possession order. If from 24 hours once the order is served the occupier has not left the property the police have the right to access the property and remove the occupier A final hearing would follow 7 days from that date and then a final possession order if the occupier cannot present a valid defence.

It is unlikely that it would reach this point as most occupiers would leave when the tenant left, it is however very important not to demand rent from the occupier as an occupier under the terms of the tenancy agreement is not responsible for this and it could be perceived in law that by accepting rent you are in fact creating a new tenancy with the occupier and thus giving them the same rights as a tenant on a new contract. I would apply this through out the duration of the tenancy to be safe.

I imagine the reason the current tenant doesnt want the incoming occupier to be on an agreement is so she can continue to claim full benefit without the council finding out.

Hope this helps

chris

In my view the point of explicitly stating that someone is a "permitted occupier" is in fact to protect the tenant as it clearly shows that the landlord knows and has agreed so cannot claim that the tenant is breaching the terms of his tenancy by sharing possession.
It might also help the landlord in proving that the person is not a tenant, though the facts of the situation would be more important.

If it was me i would certainly ask the question as to why they do not want them on the AST, if there is some sort of benefit manipulation being carried out then it will get complicated and could result in your tenants either leaving quickly or stop paying if their benefit is stopped.

You have no legal avenue for anyone not on an AST if you ever need to regain lost funds. Your current tenant may not have sufficient funds to cover any un paid rent etc, with the second person on an AST they are liable to court proceedings and bailiffs, this gives you an extra person to pursue should the worst happen.

The very least you have to do is a credit, person and if applicable employment check on the partner.

I think the "That he signs a Deed of Guarantee for his girlfriends tenancy" is the key point.

If you add him to the AST you have the risk that a judge will decide it is a new AST, so restart the 6 months clock before a S21 can be enforced.