Is this trouble - tenancy agreement?

[alfa daley]

Call me greedy but I thought I would post two topics

I have moved into a house share in Basingstoke, as after looking at 5 absolute dumps in the worst areas with very optimistic (££££ landlords I finally found a nice shared house in a good area close to work (with all important parking. However my flatmates tell me that their tenancy agreement is only for 4 people and that they asked about getting an extra person originally but the letting agent refused (something to do with houseshares in Hampshire not having more than 4 people)so can I pay them by cheque each month (they need the money for the rent).

Because I was fed up with only finding grotty houses and desperate to get out of Reading I agreed (they seem like a trustworthy lot too). What are the legal implications for breaking the tenancy agreement? Can I get in trouble, will any insurance I have on property and possesions be valid? Is it simply the equivalent of lodging there?

[justinp1]

They will probably have a standard tenancy agreement set out with the agency.

There may be local laws, or just the owners specification where they only want a certain number of people living in the property.

To do this the 'kosher' way you would have to make contact with the agency and form a tenancy agreement.

What would technically happen otherwise is that the current tenants would be 'sub-letting' to you which is a clause which is disallowed even in the most basic of rental agreements.

This would be a breach of their contract and grounds for the owner or agency to end their letting agreement.

However, what I may suggest is that as long as you dont draw attention to yourself and dont change your postal address just yet that the agency may never find out. If/when one of the current tenants moves on, you could apply to the agency to 'move in' the proper way.

As to the insurance issue I would suggest that the household as a whole has a single insurance policy covering everyones posessions.

[andy400]

The tenancy agreement is the landlords agreement to allow named persons to live in his property, it will almost certainly specifically forbid sub-letting.

It may well also invalidate the landlord's insurance policy for the building as most insurance companies require a valid tenancy agreement to be in place and many require the names and details of the tenants for their policy. Mine do, and I certainly wouldn't be happy as a landlord in this situation as it potentially carries legal problems as well as the possibility of not getting a penny out of the insurance company if the house should burn down (and we all know how insurance companies enjoy not paying...).

[chrisgr31]

If the house is let on a house share basis and the Landlord has a seperate agreement with each occupier is there a potential problems with the regulations on properties in multi-occupation? Is there a limiit of 4 before statutory consents are required?

[alfa daley]

The house is let by a lettings agency to all 4 of the 'tenants' at the same time for which they pay a collective rent. I still can't find any reference to this housing law which prevents more than 4 people sharing rented accom(In Hampshire) but the last thing I want to do is pay for insurance and not be able to claim if something got nicked or worse be done for somekind of fraud - although personally I think most of the risk is with the tennants as they all stand to get booted out if rumbled.

I must admit in my haste to get out of Reading I got a bit carried away and just moved in but now it's playing on my mind more and the letting agent has scheduled a routine 'visit'

[superlightr]

The limit on numbers is probably due to not having a house in multiple occupation HMO.

HMO's are a pain in the ass, fire regs apply. Permissions have to be obtined.

Also 5 sharers are a pain in the bum from a Landlords pov.


You have not done anything wrong. The original tenants have by braking their tenancy agreement. They will get shat on if found out. Dont know how the insurance side will play out if you need to claim.

What about council tax?

[alfa daley]

cr*p hadn't considered council tax implications, I thought it depended on the house/ area rather than how many live there, arghhh this is all sounding like it's going tits up

[chrisgr31]

alfa daley said:

cr*p hadn't considered council tax implications, I thought it depended on the house/ area rather than how many live there, arghhh this is all sounding like it's going tits up

Council tax is irrelevant if the property is held under a single tenancy agreement. It applies to the unit of occupation, if it is 1 house its 1 banding so one bill. If it is let as 4 or 5 bedsits then potentially each will have its own banding. In your case it appears to be a single house so one banding.

Presumably the property must have 5 bedrooms? Or are some of the 4 a couple? I doubt letting agent is allowed to look through the drawers etc, so just ensure the room looks unoccupied

[saxmund]

I once lived in a shared rented prperty where one of the tenants wasn't on the tenancy agreement (because the landlord wanted to charge more for 4 people than for 3). We had a burglary and the "ghost" tenant had no trouble claiming, I'm not sure that on a contents-only policy they'd look at the tenancy agreement. Mind you the insurance company nailed him on under-insurance, as my friend had loads of books he'd generally paid a couple of quid for and the insurance company reckoned that as it was a new-for-old policy they should be insured at the new price (despite the fact that quite a lot were out of print).