Two tenants have applied to rent my property. Only the lead tenant is paying the rent, this person has passed the referencing check including affordability for the full rent. The second tenant has not - no income data but everything else seems fine.
Should all adult tenants living in the property be named in the rental agreement or just those that are paying the rent?
Legally - for the lead tenant and/or landlord - is it better to only have the person paying on the tenancy agreement?
Opinion is divided on this point. Some prefer to have two people to sue. I would prefer to not give tenancy rights to someone who doesn’t have the money to pay the rent. As long as your insurance or mortgage terms don’t require all adults to be tenants, you could give the other person “permission to occupy”, but name them as a tenant. If the two are married it won’t make much difference though.
Thank you David. My concern is exactly that - giving tenancy rights to someone who is not paying the rent. But also if they are living there, regardless of if they are on the agreement or not, worried that they then automatically get tenancy rights.
I like the permission to occupy suggestion. If I have understood correctly, I could refer to the second applicant in the tenancy agreement as having permission to occupy, but NOT a named tenant.
Yes, you can name them either in the TA or separately as a permitted occupier or even just give them verbal permission if you want. They won’t acquire any tenancy rights unless they marry the tenant. Just check any insurance or mortgage requirements first.