PDA

View Full Version : AST: let to one person or all occupants?



Gillyann
23-03-2009, 11:31 AM
Good morning, lovely March windy day!

I have a question, which I cannot seem to find the answer to..and yes, I know I should KNOW this.....

Have changed Lettings agents over the last 5 months, (they are finders only, then hand management over to us)

Having lived through 4 ghastly voids in the past few months :eek: these new agents have done really well for us in finding good tenants in reasonable fast time so we are delighted and thankful, BUT, in the case of more than one tenant (as in two of the properties) they only put one tenant as the name on the AST....whereas the agency we used before always put EVERY tenants name on the AST!


We have queried this with them today as the last vacant house is about to be tenanted, it is a man and his partner and their child.....I have copies of the AST here with only the man's name on....and I know that in the past we have always had every name of every person living any property over the age of 18.

An example of this was we accepted a lady in one house, she has moved her partner in, and he answers her phone, we have never actually spoken to the tenant (about to put that right with a visit)! Surely this partner should also be on the AST?

So, what, please, is the legal standing of a partner if the Tenant who has signed the AST then walks out leaving his/her partner who cannot pay the rent?

Surely that is the reason everyone's name who lives in a property should be on the AST?

Many thanks

davidjohnbutton
23-03-2009, 11:53 AM
It is not unusual for one person out of a family or relationship to be the tenant though, like you, I would prefer that all adult occupants in either a common law or marital relationship are on the agreement.

It might well be that there are valid reasons, like for example one of the couple being under 18, or both claim benefits separately (can be done quite legally so long as the authoritiesare aware).

If the tenant goes and leaves a non-tenant behind, then you have to either regularise the tenancy in the name of the left behind person, or take possession proceedings - a lot depends on whether or not the rent continues to be paid. As to legal standing of such a party left behind - they are not tenants - they have no legal relationship to you UNLESS you formalise the tenancy agreement with them or KNOWINGLY accept rent from them. In the absence of these two caveats, they become a trespasser who can be removed in the normal course of law by eviction.

One thing that happened to me many years ago, and one to keep an eye out for - a regulated tenant left without my knowledge - before she departed she "assigned" the tenancy to another person who continued to bank rent as though she was my regulated tenant. Several months down the line - I got a call from this assigned tenant asking for the rent book to be changed into her name. I naturally refused to do so and marked any further rent receipts as mesne profits and ordered the assignee to leave which they did without a court order being needed. The property was de-regulated and a market rent charged on a new AST. Now I genuinely knew nothing of the change of occupier - no neighbours had mentioned it, I used to collect rents monthly by hand but to this particular house there was never anyone in so they used to bank the rent at the local TSB - because it was deception, I never created a new tenancy but had I become aware and accepted rent rather than mesne profits, I would have hve regularised acceptance of the new occupier as a tenant.

Gillyann
23-03-2009, 12:32 PM
Thank you DavidJohn, that is very helpful. I much prefer to cover myself with all names of tenants on the AST...you have confirmed this for me.:)

jeffrey
23-03-2009, 13:06 PM
I would prefer that all adult occupants in either a common law or marital relationship are on the agreement.
But not more than four.

davidjohnbutton
23-03-2009, 13:11 PM
One would tend to hope that no more than 2 people are in either a common law or marital relationship - at 4 - the mind boggles.

Jeffrey is of course right that no more than 4 people can hold a tenancy or a property (unless a company), whether they are related or not. English law dictates that is the maximum of people that can hold title to individual land.

jeffrey
23-03-2009, 13:14 PM
One would tend to hope that no more than 2 people are in either a common law or marital relationship - at 4 - the mind boggles.
Consider:
a. polygamous/polyandrist family (from a country where that is lawful); or
b. troilist/quadrilist common-law relationship (obviously outside the Civil Partnership Act 2004).

mind the gap
23-03-2009, 13:27 PM
One would tend to hope that no more than 2 people are in either a common law or marital relationship - at 4 - the mind boggles.

So it's alright for Prince Charles to have an extra person in his marriage, but not for us commoners?

(Although I suppose he probably didn't have to satisfy the stringent requirements of tenant referencing checks, or worry about being served a section 8 if he couldn't afford the rent).

davidjohnbutton
23-03-2009, 13:39 PM
Why should Charles be any different to any of the other Royalty philanderers of the past - take Henry VIII for example - six wives - although not all at once - only difference is that Charles cannot have heads lopped off.

Just imagine the furore if he had Horseface and Di in same house at same time, never mind same bed!!!!!!!!! Anyway, if he was tupping both of em - he must have had a lot of energy to spare!!!!!!

mind the gap
23-03-2009, 13:45 PM
Why should Charles be any different to any of the other Royalty philanderers of the past - take Henry VIII for example - six wives - although not all at once - only difference is that Charles cannot have heads lopped off.

Just imagine the furore if he had Horseface and Di in same house at same time, never mind same bed!!!!!!!!! Anyway, if he was tupping both of em - he must have had a lot of energy to spare!!!!!!


I did not say he was any different from previous royal womanisers (although how anyone could fancy him is way beyond me) - just that you and Jeffrey seemed to have decided two in a marriage was enough for commoners (like people who sign ASTs)..obviously being royal an' all, like wot 'e is, it gets yer off the 'ook, innit.

And I think, out of respect to Darwin, we had better get the biology sorted out here. If Mrs P-B is a horse, then Charlie boy cannot have been 'tupping' her, as that term refers to sexual activity amongst sheep. I personally incline to the view that she is a swamp-donkey masquerading as a human, but my farming lexicon doesn't stretch to knowing the equivalent term for 'tupping' amongst the asinine species.

I'm sure Jeffrey's will.

Gillyann
23-03-2009, 13:46 PM
Neigh!:rolleyes:

jeffrey
23-03-2009, 14:46 PM
'tupping' her...refers to sexual activity amongst sheep...My farming lexicon doesn't stretch to knowing the equivalent term for 'tupping' amongst the asinine species.
Ask some Welsh members?

mind the gap
23-03-2009, 15:40 PM
Ask some Welsh members?

Best not. It might encourage him.

jeffrey
23-03-2009, 16:03 PM
out of respect to Darwin
I have none. He himself acknowledged, in his later life, that many of his theories were wrong. Everyone knows that:
a. survival of the fittest; and
b. adaptation to environment;
are radically different from
c. trans-species genetic conversion.

Yes, only the stonger tend to thrive; yes, only those animals adaptive to change thrive; but, no, fish do not become animals (nor do animals become human beings- most UK city streets' weekend nights in fact demonstrate quite the reverse).

mind the gap
23-03-2009, 16:35 PM
I have none. He himself acknowledged, in his later life, that many of his theories were wrong. Everyone knows that:
a. survival of the fittest; and
b. adaptation to environment;
are radically different from
c. trans-species genetic conversion.

Yes, only the stonger tend to thrive; yes, only those animals adaptive to change thrive; but, no, fish do not become animals (nor do animals become human beings- most UK city streets' weekend nights in fact demonstrate quite the reverse).

Do you know, even as I pressed 'submit' on that one, I had a feeling in me waters that you would object!

Perhaps it will hinge on one's definition of 'animal'.

yaf201
23-03-2009, 20:15 PM
Ask some Welsh members?

The asinine species? Oh that's a not entirely fair definition of the English.