Prospective T applied for tenancy and now wants brother to live with him permanently. T has very large income (verified), brother has insufficient income to sustain tenancy on his own. T suggests brother stays there without being made a T.
Reading your article on the Brillouet case, I assume this is a recipe for disaster. Brother will probably be a de facto tenant. Even if a licensee, we would still have to get court order if he refused to leave when asked. And as non-tenant he would not have signed up to the responsibilities of a tenant.
So, if brother becomes joint T (which we prefer to 2 single tenancies), we must decide if we take the risk of T leaving and brother being solely responsible for rent he can’t afford. Correct? (They have a guarantor in another EU country and we can do checks on home ownership/credit ref.)
2 Comments
I’m a real believer in naming all adult occupiers as tenants. This avoids any arguments as to what their status is. The exception to this general rule is if there is perhaps parents renting a property and you wouldn’t normally put their children as tenants – even if 18 or older.
I agree with you that in this case they would both be best named as tenants. If one left, both would continue to be liable until vacant possession was obtained meaning you could continue to seek payment from the reliable one. An assured shorthold tenancy continues even if only one of several tenants occupies as their main home.
I’m not sure what use a guarantor is that’s not in England or Wales. No harm in getting it I suppose but I would have no clue how you would sue somebody in Spain (for example).
Thanks for your useful reply. The guarantor was mainly for the psychological thing.