Permitted occupiers. Occupation without responsibility

What happens in a potential joint tenancy if one of the tenants does not want to be on the tenancy but wishes to be a permitted occupier?

What happens in a potential joint tenancy if one of the tenants does not want to be on the tenancy but wishes to be a permitted occupier?

Great caution should be exercised with permitted occupiers. First of all ascertain the reasons why the potential resident wants to be a permitted occupier and not a tenant. Secondly, an agency should not conduct itself with reference to what a potential tenant does or does not want in this type of situation. It should conduct itself with reference to the needs of the client landlord. There is usually no valid reason why somebody over 18 should not be a tenant. If someone is down on the tenancy as a permitted occupier they are not a party to the contract, they will have no obligations under the tenancy and, most importantly, they will not even be obliged to pay rent. They could even be taken to court for non-payment and the claim would fail.

If a couple were listed on a tenancy with one as the named tenant and the other as a permitted occupier and the tenant left the property the remaining person would have no obligations under the tenancy. They would not be obliged to leave unless by negotiation and a court order would need to be gained to achieve possession of the property based upon the named tenant. The general rule is that all occupiers of the property over 18 should be named as tenants. If necessary secure a Guarantor for the tenant who may not completely fulfil the referencing criteria.

For the avoidance of doubt, a permitted occupier is not a trespasser or a squatter. Remember that they are named on the tenancy but not as a tenant. Their existence in the property is known and agreed. They usually will be given a set of keys and at least they will have been honest enough to disclose their intended occupancy as opposed to sneaking into the property a week after the tenancy has commenced. Their legal position will be that of an “invitee” or a “licencee” or a “guest” of the named tenant. However, if rent is offered and accepted there is a strong presumption that “permitted occupier” is now a tenant. They could of course claim that they were merely paying rent “on behalf of the tenant” which may further complicate matters. Unless there are genuine objectively justifiable reasons this situation is best avoided. The best rule is that all residents over eighteen are on the contract as tenants.