Here is a question to the blog clinic from Irene (not her real name) who is a tenant
I live in a shared house, three of us moved in two years ago but the third person has recently left. We were always jointly responsible for the rent and paid our portion each.
The landlord’s daughter has now moved in to the spare room and we have discovered that she does not pay rent or have a tenancy agreement.
We are still paying a portion rather than the full rent on our agreement and the landlord doesn’t seem to object to this although she has not actually confirmed it.
Does the landlord’s daughter living rent-free without a contract impose on our ‘quiet enjoyment’ rights?
Well strictly speaking yes. Your landlord had no right whatsoever to move someone into YOUR home.
When tenants sign a tenancy agreement together you effectively own the property (subject to the landlords rights for rent, etc). So the landlord is certainly not entitled to move someone else in to live there with you.
If the situation had been that you each had your own tenancy agreement for your own room with shared use of the common parts though, then she WOULD have been entitled to do this. However you say that you all were joint tenants.
However as your landlord has actually moved her in and you have not objected, this could mean that this has changed the nature of your tenancy. As the only way the landlord could have done this as of right would be if the tenancies were individual ones, so this could mean that you will now be deemed to be individual tenants.
Which would mean that you are now only liable for the rent you have been paying for your own room and not the full rent for the property (which you would be as a joint and several tenant).
If you don’t object to the daughter overmuch and can’t afford to pay the full rent, then you may want to leave things as they are. If you insist on your strict legal rights as joint and several tenants not to have someone forced on you, you will make yourself liable for the vacated tenants share and will antagonise your landlord.
One other interpretation of the legal situation could be that the daughter is there as your lodger. With a sort of implied agreement that allowing her to remain will release you from your obligation to pay the third tenants share of the rent.
But whatever legal interpretation is given to the situation – if you insist on the daughter leaving you will find it hard to deny your liability for the extra rent.
What does anyone else make of this situation?
There is also the possible consideration, that when a L/L has a ‘close’ relative living in the property, that it can not be an AST….not sure if this applies here as you had created the AST before she moved in.
Please correct me if I am missing the mark here??
Its a valid point but as you say, the tenancy already existed when the daughter moved in so the principle will not apply in this case.