Landlord Grants Non-Tenant Permission to Occupy

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

    Landlord Grants Non-Tenant Permission to Occupy

    In this case the named tenant on the AST is an elderly mother. Her tenancy from viewing to move-in and any related issues for over 18 months including communications back and forth with both the managing agent and landlord have been conducted only with her adult son. The son continued to live in the property since move-in due to deteriorating health of mother. Son believed/believes the following assignment clause in addition to the interactions with agent and landlord permit him to occupy as a child of his mother:

    "Not to assign, sublet, part with, or share the possession of all or part of the Premises with any other person and
    not to take in lodgers or paying guests or permit any person other than the person(s) named as the Tenant in
    this Agreement and any permitted children to occupy or reside in the Premises without the Landlord’s prior
    written consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. The Landlord or his Agent reserves the right to
    withdraw, for reasonable grounds and upon reasonable notice, any such consent previously given."

    The agent is claiming the tenant is in breech of contract and all is required to remedy is for son, who they and the landlord will permit, to provide identification to determine legal status. Tenancy commenced 2014. Son does not want to be a named tenant or be added to tenancy.

    Is the son correct to assume he has status of children as the son of the tenant and permission is implied due to the interactions and length of time he has lived in property?
    Further, does he have the right not to present identification?

    Thank you experts.

    #2
    How old is the son. Is he a foreign national whom you suspect has no right to live here?



    Freedom at the point of zero............

    Comment


      #3
      Is the son correct to assume he has status of children as the son of the tenant and permission is implied due to the interactions and length of time he has lived in property?
      I think he probably is. If the tenant is paying rent on time and not a problem let it go.

      Whilst prohibiting subletting and taking in paying guests may be fair enough, provisions which seek to restrict occupation to the tenant and named occupiers are overly restrictive and may even be deemed unfair. If you let a three bedroom house you have to expect that all the bedrooms will be occupied.

      Comment


        #4
        Landlord is obliged to check that all occupiers have a Right to Rent though so asking for ID is not unreasonable

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by DPT57 View Post
          Landlord is obliged to check that all occupiers have a Right to Rent though so asking for ID is not unreasonable
          All over 18 only.. see
          https://www.gov.uk/check-tenant-right-to-rent-documents

          Mind you, think I'd want ID for all occupants from now on in England...
          I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

          Comment


            #6
            You read the law, then you read the gov.uk's page above. No wonder there are so many misconceptions in the industry, even gov.uk use their 'artistic licence'.

            Comment


              #7
              The person living there needs to provide evidence to the landlord that they are a permitted person rather than, say, a lodger.
              The landlord can't unreasonably decline permission for them to reside there, and probably only has to agree in some relatively informal way.

              It might not be the landlord's choice about whether the son needs to be on the tenancy agreement, it might be a condition of a mortgage lender or insurer.
              But it certainly isn't the choice of a tenant's guest (even of they are the tenant's son)

              The Right to Rent checks don't apply unless there's a new tenancy, but will apply eventually.
              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


                #8
                Thanks all for the replies - so further points to clarify.

                1. Tenant's Son over 40 and tenancy started prior to right to rent post 2015 requirements.
                2. Tenant is British Citizen (so is son but don't tell anyone).
                3. Landlord thinks the request is ridiculous and doesn't understand why IF it is that important the Agent waiting so long and as such says just present ID and will give consent when asked.
                4. Agent is hostile, harrasing and untrustworthy. Likely using opportunity or will try to make tenant's son a named tenant.

                Is there consensus that Tenants son does not have to provide ID as tenancy started pre-right to rent requirements?
                Is there consensus that the term in children in the assignment can refer to the relationship as in mother and son/child? 'Children' not in AST definitions.

                Thanks.

                Comment


                  #9
                  More responses to great points:

                  - 2 bedroom flat with only elderly named tenant and her son.
                  - Tenant has dementia, learning and language difficulties. Son is Carer with POA.
                  - Tenant 18 months no late quarterly advanced rent payment.
                  - Agent intimidating tenant with such demands and refuses to deal with tenants son demanding he will only deal with the Tenant on ALL matters until ID is presented.
                  - There are serious maintenance issues requiring the managing agents attention.
                  - Agent leverage position and falsely claiming the damage was caused by the tenants son.

                  Thanks

                  Thanks.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    No, while the agent has no right to harass, asking for proof of the tenant's son's identity is entirely reasonable (why should anyone take his word he is who he says he is?)

                    It is quite possible that it is not OK for someone to stay in the property who is not on a tenancy agreement or recorded as an approved occupier.
                    It would have consequences for my insurance, for example.

                    If there was someone in one of my properties who a) refused to be added to the tenancy documentation and b) declined to identify themselves, I would probably serve notice.
                    There is no sensible reason not to provide id.
                    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


                      #11
                      Originally posted by metenant View Post
                      Agent intimidating tenant with such demands and refuses to deal with tenants son demanding he will only deal with the Tenant on ALL matters until ID is presented.
                      Again, they are not allowed to intimidate, but they are entirely correct to want to deal with the tenant only and would be wrong to do otherwise.
                      They need to see something that allows you to speak for the tenant - particularly if the tenant is unable to look after themselves.

                      There's no point being confrontational about this, you don't want to be trying to find a new home for someone with dementia.
                      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


                        #12
                        If the son presents the landlord and/or agent with a "form of authority" signed by tenant authorising son to act on his behalf that should sort things.

                        Suggest tenant and/or son get down to local citizens advice for advice & help, quick!
                        I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

                        Comment


                          #13
                          I thought it was a right enshrined in Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, backed by the Daily Mail and confirmed as a principle to be upheld by those currently in power when they repealed the Identity Cards Act 2006 that requiring British Citizens to identify themselves was all part of New Labour's big brother plan. It is of course entirely proper for foreigners to be required to identify themselves. Government advice as to how to distinguish between a British citizen and a foreigner has not yet been issued. When it is foreigners will not need to identify themselves because it will be known who they are.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Foreigners will be identified, as they always have, by their inability to pronounce Towcester and Cholomondly.

                            Even the most manic civil libertarians accept that if a benefit is available to someone by dint of who they are, it isn't unreasonable for them to show who they are to obtain the benefit.
                            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


                              #15
                              Disappointing. In 'papers please' you will find often it is not the papers that are missing or the problem but the 'please' and the person questioning. I would be all for mandatory Towcester and Cholomondly elocution for all foreigners if it would stop there but that is unlikely given the volume of unpronounceable towns any two of which may not apply the same logic or have caveats to pronunciation. Where were we?

                              Surely the agent cannot make summary demands to do so citing laws which do not apply to a person who cannot understand and then expect a notice he might serve to be enforceable.

                              Sometimes the right answer to 'papers please' is 'no'.

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X