right to remain

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    right to remain

    We have applicants for a residential tenancy, we prefer not to rent for less than 12 months, but their passport says the right to remain expires before next June. Are we as landlords obligated to grant a letting which expires simultaneous with the right to remain? Might be an obvious question but its never arisen previously, for us at least....thanks

    #2
    No, you will need to check them again after a year but don't need to do anything else as long as they pass when the tenancy starts.
    https://www.gov.uk/check-tenant-righ...further-checks

    Comment


      #3
      I believe you can grant a 12 month tenancy if they currently have a right to rent, but must go through the process again at the end of that.

      Comment


        #4
        First of all, never give a 12 month tenancy to someone you don't know.

        If you do give them a tenancy that lasts longer than their right to remain, and that right expires and is not renewed or re-instated, you would have to get the home office to formally confirm that in order to evict them.
        The tenant wouldn't be able to serve notice and leave, without your agreement to surrender the tenancy.

        There's no obvious advantage in a fixed term longer than someone's right to rent.
        When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
        Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
          If you do give them a tenancy that lasts longer than their right to remain, and that right expires and is not renewed or re-instated, you would have to get the home office to formally confirm that in order to evict them.
          But not within the first 12 months.

          If the tenant passes the initial check then the 'statutory excuse' lasts for at least 12 months - i.e., the landlord cannot be prosecuted even if the right to remain expires during that time. Only after 12 months do they need to recheck and then possibly take action.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Ted.E.Bear View Post
            If the tenant passes the initial check then the 'statutory excuse' lasts for at least 12 months - i.e., the landlord cannot be prosecuted even if the right to remain expires during that time. Only after 12 months do they need to recheck and then possibly take action.
            That's interesting.
            Can you point me at that?

            When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
            Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

            Comment


              #7
              It's in the Code of Practice, under follow-up checks

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Ted.E.Bear View Post
                It's in the Code of Practice, under follow-up checks
                That's odd, because it doesn't appear to be what the legislation says.
                It looks to me that they're obliged to check when the right to reside has expired and are only excused from a penalty if they inform the secretary of state of the issue.

                I could be wrong though, the legislation is pretty tortuous.
                When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                Comment


                  #9
                  My colleague has decided that discretion is the better part of valour and offered them six months only.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                    That's odd, because it doesn't appear to be what the legislation says.
                    I think it's covered by the reference to guidance in the legislation.
                    "In determining whether subsection (6)(a) or (b) applies to a person, the court must have regard to any guidance which, at the time in question, had been issued by the Secretary of State for the purposes of that subsection and was in force at that time."

                    Comment

                    Latest Activity

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X