No, I don't think so,
No, I don't think so,
It has moved on a bit but not yet completely resolved...
So that my son's friends did not lose their deposit, and so that they can all live together as planned, my son asked the LA if they were willing to take him without a guarantor.
The LA said yes, as long as he paid 3 months' worth of rent at a time.
So, a couple of days ago my son paid his deposit and he is now hoping that they get a copy of the AST signed by the landlord so that they know it is confirmed.
I think their main outstanding concern is that, having taken my son's deposit as well, that they may still not receive a signed copy of the AST and still won't know for sure that it is confirmed - but they plan to leave it a couple of weeks in the hope that they will receive the AST signed by the landlord.
(JTs may agree between themselves to pay shares of the rent, but that is a private agreement between the JTs).
So, what the agent is demanding makes no legal sense, and could well lead to other complications.
Take a scenario of two joint tenants, John and Jane, with a six month fixed term tenancy commencing 1st Jan; let's say the rent is £500 pcm, payable monthly in advance. John/Jane privately agree to pay £250 each pcm. LL demands that John pays his 'share' three months' up front.
So, the rent in advance paid on 1st jan would be £750 from John, and £250 from Jane, total £1,000. The equivalent of two months' rent in advance. Yet the second month's rent is not due until 1st Feb, so the extra month paid arguably comprises a deposit; if the LL fails to protect it he may be exposed to a claim for deposit non-compliance. That's the first complication, though it's essentially the LL's problem.
But, leaving that aside, let's say that Jane loses her job and doesn't pay her 'share' on 1st Feb or 1st March. From John's POV, he thinks he's paid his 'share' already (for the period 1st Jan - 31st March), however, on 2nd March there will be £500 owing and unpaid, and the law says that both John and Jane will be liable. LL would, however, be entitled to claim against John alone for the full £500.*
Of course, the same complication can arise with any joint tenancy if one of the JTs fails to contribute his share, however, arguably it is inviting complications if one JT pays rent before it lawfully falls due.
*If John were ordered to pay £500, he could subsequently pursue a claim against Jane, on the basis of their private agreement to pay 50% each.
TMC#41 Just a quick point about the extension on the side. As this is being used as a bedroom it must have an escape route that does not rely on going through the kitchen (it could have French windows or an exit via the hall).