G'tor V's Tenant

[Carryon Regardless]

To take a G'tor (Mr G) we 'ideally' need a deed of guarantee from them.

A T (Mr T) need only sign onto the AST to confirm their responsibilities.

Legally what would be the implications of having Mr G sign onto the AST as T along with Mr T and any other T.

Any one can take up more than 1 residence (and / or tenancy), after all we don't check to see if a T lives elsewhere also.

The one implication is that Mr G could terminate the whole tenancy by giving notice, any more ?

[Grampa]

This is a very interesting question and one I have pondered over before.

With a AST it has to be your main residence if not is it not a AST unless there are more than one tenant on the agreement and at least one is living there full time.

I see no reason why a guarantor couldn't be put on as a extra joint tenant instead of signing a deed of guarantee. But the only reason for doing so that I can think of would be if you had to evict via a s8 notice so you get a ccj awarded against both tenants and the guarantor/tenant at the same time.

Normally you would evict the tenant and get a ccj against the tenant (via s8). They have no funds so you then have take the guarantor to court this way you MAY be able to kill two birds with one stone and save time.

If it was defended by the guarantor/tenant you would have to be very prepared when going into court though. It would be interesting to hear a solicitors take on a situation like that.

[Richlist]

Whats the problem with the guarantor signing a deed of guarantee ?

When you have a system that works from a legal & quasi legal perspective why do you want to try to resdesign it ?

[Carryon Regardless]

Previously I have taken the T and G'tor to County Court in the one claim, I believe we can name up to two as a max ??

In practice we would usually try and ascertain who is more likely to have ability to satisfy a claim and go for them, a second named defendant would be, well really cos we can do.

I could imagine a solicitor making a meal of the tenancy situation but,

a- the County Court is designed (in theory) to not need them,

b- Mr G willingly signed the AST accepting the terms and who are we to decide where a person lives, that is surely their own choice ?

I'm still thinking.....

[snorkerz]

If the residential T has another joint tenant on their tenancy agreement and claims housing benefit then their benefit payments will be compromised. Not your problem until they start being unable to pay the rent.

[Grampa]

Not if their not living there

[snorkerz]

Yes because with one occupier tenant and one guarantor tenant the occupier only has a 'rent liability' for half of the rent shown on the tenancy agreement so far as 'benefits' are concerned. This is frequently a problem for couples who split but have joint tenancies.

[Grampa]

We have had tenancies where a couple have split up and only one of the tenants are still living there. Due to the uncertainty of the rent being paid a new tenancy hasn't been drawn up so the tenancy is left how it is (either periodic or fixed term). The council have then paid full LHA for the remaining tenant and not asked for a new AST in one name only and I guess they (tenants) have provided evidence proving only one person is living in the property.

But as stated before I deal with my council on a regular basis and other councils may take a stricter stance on that situation.