PDA

View Full Version : named occupiers or named tenants on lease?



smithie
17-05-2007, 17:14 PM
Can someone please advise if its better to have named tenants on a lease or have one tenant (parent responisble for paying the family rent) with named occupiers when letting to a family on an AST?

Scenario 2 - to have both parents named on a tenancy agreement and have the teenage kids as named occupiers or named tenants?

The scenario is a family moving into a house, with one parent paying the family rent, the others contibuting informally within a family arrangement.

I would like to be in the strongest position as a landlord should things go wrong and they need evicting/removing from the property for rent default or otherwise.

I looked into rent insurance but they are all seem very restricitve and need all parties to be named on the tenancy and paying rent to get cover.

Many thanks
Smithie:confused:

J4L
17-05-2007, 17:50 PM
I think you legally HAVE to name all adults living in a property on a TA. If i'm wrong on this I still think it'd be safer to do it this way.

smithie
17-05-2007, 18:01 PM
Just to clarify I have been told you can name the one person as a "tenant" and include the others as named occupiers..

Paragon
17-05-2007, 18:09 PM
I believe the children would have to be 18 to enter into a contract. Both parents - I would put both on the agreement.

smithie
17-05-2007, 18:14 PM
Thanks - the children are over 18 and will be contributing toward the rent, this is an informal arrangement within the family.

Can someone advise of the difference between named tenants and named occupiers as this is where I am struggling to understand the legal implications should things go wrong...

Thanks
Smithie

jeffrey
18-05-2007, 10:08 AM
Thanks - the children are over 18 and will be contributing toward the rent, this is an informal arrangement within the family.

Can someone advise of the difference between named tenants and named occupiers as this is where I am struggling to understand the legal implications should things go wrong...

Thanks
Smithie

Only tenants are liable under Agreement. If they default, you can section 8 them.
Occupants aren't and you can't.

P.Pilcher
18-05-2007, 15:11 PM
Surely tenants are occupiers who are responsible for paying the rent. Other occupiers, adults or children occupy the property with the consent of the tenant(s) and may be lodgers. Should court action be taken against the tenant(s) then the court bailiff will remove all occupiers when enforcing a possession order. Of course, HMO regulations also have to be considered.

P.P.

jeffrey
18-05-2007, 15:17 PM
Surely tenants are occupiers who are responsible for paying the rent. Other occupiers, adults or children occupy the property with the consent of the tenant(s) and may be lodgers. Should court action be taken against the tenant(s) then the court bailiff will remove all occupiers when enforcing a possession order. Of course, HMO regulations also have to be considered.

P.P.
Yes. What I meant was:
a. tenants are liable (whether or not they actually occupy); but
b. occupiers who are not tenants are therefore not liable.