My Tenants Are Getting Divorced/Separated – What Are My Rights?

Tenant Breakup


My tenants have only gone and broken up from their long-term relationship… mid-tenancy! Urgh, why do catastrophic things always happen to me (good people)?

I received the phone call last week; my tenant (the male counterpart) did the honours of informing me that his relationship (with the co-tenant) has gone down the swanny, and consequently their living arrangements had changed.


Like any warm blooded animal, my immediate reaction was to offer my condolences and unleash a flurry of the all cliché platitudes. But the pit of my stomach was doing somersaults, freaking out about the current and future state of the tenancy, and what a pickle I’ve been potentially left with. Selfish much?

Anyways, so now what happens? Well now I’m going to make lemonade out of lemons by using the opportunity to craft a blog post (you could say their marriage going to shit was a blessing in disguise in some ways – I’ve been struggling with writer’s blogger’s block), covering the following:

  • What the landlord’s legal rights are when tenants break up
  • What happens to the tenancy agreement when couples break up
  • What I decided to do when my tenants broke up and changed their living arrangements

Table of contents

Check tenancy agreement to determine yours and your tenants’ position

First and foremost, check the details of the tenancy, particularly the following (as they will determine the options you have available):

  1. Is the tenancy sole or joint?
    In other words, is one person named as the sole tenant in the tenancy agreement (making the other occupant a “permitted occupier”), or are both named tenants?

    If you have a sole tenancy agreement, then the named tenant is responsible for paying the rent and all the other obligations under the agreement. If it’s a joint tenancy, then there is most likely “joint and several liability”, meaning they’re both legally responsible and bound by the terms of the tenancy, including the rent.

    Most tenancy agreements will contain a “several liability” clause. For example, my tenancy agreements has the following clause:

    1.13 Unless otherwise expressly provided, the obligations and liabilities of the parties under this agreement are joint and several.

  2. When is the fixed-term due to end?
    Or has the tenancy rolled onto a periodic tenancy?
  3. In my case, I had joint tenancy and the tenancy was periodic (i.e. the tenancy was rolling on a month by month basis, so neither myself or my tenants were tied into a fixed term).

    Who is responsible for paying rent after tenants’ break-up?

    I’ve already answered this, but it’s literally the most Frequently Asked Question in this situation, so I feel like it warrants being spelt out like it’s being taught to a toddler.

    In short, it depends.

    If the tenancy agreement is signed by one single tenant, then that person is responsible and liable for paying rent during the tenancy, and that remains the case even if that person decides to vacate.

    If the tenancy agreement is joint – and unless there are specific conditions on splitting the responsibility – everyone named in the tenancy agreement is equally responsible for paying rent, even if they decide to vacate.

    Common scenarios when tenants break up

    Tenants breaking-up

    1) One tenant wants to leave, while other becomes the sole tenant

    Presuming you’re happy for one tenant to remain and become the sole tenant, there are two options:

    1. The cleanest option is to mutually “surrender” the existing tenancy, and then start a new sole tenancy with the remaining tenant.
    2. Issue an addendum to the existing tenancy agreement that clearly documents the change in circumstances, including the departing tenant’s name, the new sole tenant and the date it takes effect. All parties should sign the document.

    2) Both tenants want to leave (and end the tenancy)

    If the tenancy has rolled into a periodic tenancy, then it isn’t really an issue as the tenants’ can serve one months’ notice to quit and get the hell out of there (before they kill one another).

    If the tenancy is still in the fixed term, then either the joint tenants’ or the sole tenant are bound by the terms of the tenancy until it expires and the landlord is given official notice to quit, so at least one of the tenants’ will be responsible for paying the rent until then.

    They can both move out before the end of the fixed term, but rent will still need to be paid by the liable tenant(s). However, if in the meantime, you find new tenants to move in, you can’t continue charging rent to the previous tenants. Double-dipping is a no-go and in breach of the Tenant Fees Act 2019.

    Personally, I don’t think it’s fair or right to keep tenants tied into a fixed term if they both want to prematurely vacate after a break up, so I’d be willing to mutually end the tenancy agreement early under the condition that they’re willing to continue paying rent up until new tenants have been found and moved in or the fixed term ends (depending on which happens first).

    3) Both want to remain tenants, but not with each other

    This is tricky. And there’s no easy solution.

    1. Terminate the tenancy with both, and find new tenants
    2. Stay out of it and get them to decide (because you don’t care which tenant stays
    3. Pick your favourite based on individual merit and start a new sole tenancy with them

    What happens to the deposit when tenants break up?

    If both tenants vacate and the tenancy is terminated, then the normal end of tenancy procedure should be followed – return the deposit (minus any claims).

    If one tenant is going to remain, while the other moves out (after serving a notice to quit), then that can be considerably trickier.

    If the outgoing tenant contributed to the original deposit and would like their portion back, then according to Shelter, there are two options:

    • The landlord agrees to give their position back (which ultimately means the deposit becomes less, unless the remaining tenant tops it back up)
    • Ask the remaining tenant to refund the outgoing tenant’s share of the deposit

    Neither solution makes it sound like the outgoing tenant is entitled to get it back, but rather it’s possible if someone is willing to play ball.

    The reason I’m referencing Shelter’s viewpoint is not only because are they a reputable source of information, but also because they tend to be very pro-tenant leaning, so I find it quite telling that they seem to be suggesting that it’s potentially tough titties for outgoing tenants in this situation, and with very little recourse. Make of that what you will.

    Either way, I think what’s most important is for the landlord NOT to mishandle the deposit and consequently being put in a position where any future claims are put into jeopardy, so I actually recommend either contacting the deposit scheme where the deposit is protected for clarification on how to properly manage the deposit in the given situation, and/or find guidance on their website on how to manage a change of sharer/tenant mid-tenancy (they’re bound to have guidance on the matter somewhere).

    Can landlords end a tenancy agreement early if tenants break up?


    Well, to be precise, not just because of a failed relationship.

    But also, I don’t know why any landlord would want to do that without good reason (a break-up in itself isn’t one).

    A break up alone will not give landlords grounds for eviction during the fixed term of a tenancy. So unless the tenants breach the terms of the tenancy (i.e. fall into rent arrears), they will still have legal rights to remain occupants until the end of the tenancy.

    So the only other option as far as ending the tenancy (without a breach), is for the landlord to issue a Section 21 notice to terminate the tenancy after the fixed or periodic term of the tenancy. But bear in mind that requires a two month notice period.

    Alternatively, if there is a mutual agreement between landlord and tenant(s) to surrender the tenancy early, then that works.

    For more information, here is a link to a more in-depth blog post on how to end a tenancy and the different options available.

    Can tenants end a tenancy agreement early if they break up?


    Just like landlords can’t prematurely end a tenancy on the grounds of a break-up, tenants can’t either. The named tenants remain responsible for taking care of the property and paying rent until the tenancy is properly terminated, either by:

    • Providing the landlord with a notice to quit, to take effect after the fixed or periodic term (landlords should be given at least one months’ notice).
    • Mutual agreement between tenant and landlord

    What did I decide to do after my tenants’ separated?

    So, to clarify, I don’t think there’s any one size fits all response to the situation, so my response shouldn’t be used as a default template.

    I think the best path to take (for all parties) really depends on several factors, including what the tenants’ themselves want to do (and how that may impact the household income Vs rent), their track record as tenants, and what the landlord/tenant relationship is like.

    In my case, I was fortunate that despite their domestic issues, they were model tenants throughout the tenure (which was approx. 14 months at this point). I’m sure whatever it is they were going through didn’t just happen overnight, but rather several months of turmoil, and during that time they upheld all their obligations.

    Eddie (a random alias I’ve assigned to one half of the duo) informed me that he had already vacated the property 6+ weeks’ prior to notifying me of the situation, while Dorothy (a random alias I’ve assigned to his wife) remained living there. That’s how they wanted the situation to remain going forward (which led me to believe that the “let’s see if we can fix this” phase failed), so they made the request to renew the tenancy with Dorothy being the sole tenant.

    I had no problem with that, to be honest, because as said, they’ve been model tenants, and I really didn’t have any reason not to trust either of them. In the worst case scenario, Dorothy defaults on rent and I serve a Section 21 notice (since they’ve rolled onto a periodic tenancy).

    After the initial phone call (which, to be frank, completely blind-sided me), I got in touch with Dorothy just to ensure she was okay, and to confirm that I was happy for her to remain the sole tenant.

    My only condition, to protect myself, was that I wouldn’t renew the tenancy with Dorothy as the sole tenant for another 4 months, so I could still benefit from joint and several liability. They both agreed.

    Job done!

    Update: 7 years later (2022), Dorothy remains the sole occupant and hasn’t missed a single payment – she remains a model tenant. Absolutely incredible.

    I haven’t spoken to Eddie since he broke the news to me over the phone, so I have no idea what his situation is. Funny enough, I did spot him out in public a year or so after the incident. Naturally, I scurried off into the opposite direction, hoping to avoid an awkward encounter at all costs.

    Are you a landlord or tenant going through this ordeal? Drop a comment and share your experience or feel free to ask any questions…

45 Join the Conversation...

Guest Avatar
Benji 8th January, 2015 @ 16:59

Either he will move back in or she will be gone within the year (assuming there are no kids).

Guest Avatar
Andy 8th January, 2015 @ 19:44

I have had a similar situation but tenants moved out and went different directions, glad I had a guarantor though as would not have got money without putting pressure on the dad. In your situation I would just keep taking the money until the situation arises where an alternative action is required. The fact that circumstances have changed has not caused you any issue. As you say they are both liable for rent but you should be on top of it perhaps making 1/4 visits as she might go off with a new partner and he might just stop paying rent. Not a problem for today but tomorrow will come.

Guest Avatar
Katy 8th January, 2015 @ 20:29

This happened to me and the woman stayed and ended up claiming benefits to stay in the property as she didn't work. My "No DSS" in the advert 2 years earlier went out of the window. To be fair despite the warnings of my agent that housing benefit tenants were unreliable, the rent was alway paid on time and in full.

Guest Avatar
Joann 9th January, 2015 @ 07:41

As a tenant I've done ' bullshit maintenance repairs' myself or paid a professional to do them - then had strips torn off me by the landlord as it's 'not up to me to make those decisions' I'm talking about blocked drains and faulty electrics. It seems to me no matter how good a thoughtful and self sufficient tenant you are landlords don't give a rats. I hope if there's ever a day roles are reversed I more than appreciate a good tenant.

Guest Avatar
Frances 9th January, 2015 @ 10:06

Re your "Business Vs Personal matters" bullet point: this is really important. I've just had a tenant contacting me with various personal and mental health issues. I've recommended she investigates getting some help, but apart from that, I am keeping my distance (and monitoring rent).

Guest Avatar
Nige 9th January, 2015 @ 10:50

Add this experiernce to the list !! Ive had the lot from old folk found ill in bed to the suicide of a friend.
I'm sure that Littlewoods sell ejector beds. It would seem that my tenants change partners every time the school bell rings and the button is pressed an a new partner installed.
At least your situation is reasonably straight forward.. Unlike my tenant who gave one of the properties to his ex wife (who incidentally hates him) and cleared off without telling us. I won't quite use the word compassion but general help has meant a long term tenant on DHSS and she has been as good as gold making up shortfall payments.
Oh Ive had the sob stories. One got cancer and was on a short term contract. Her kids wrecked the house whilst in hospital. This was followed up by 'fake' letters from her brother purporting to be a letting agent telling me they had pulled in environmental health because the wrecked bathroom was a health hazard. Then they pulled in environmental health. I won that case.
Welcome to the crazy world of being a landlord. One minute it seems smooth and the next minute some weird and wonderfulproblem will be foisted on you just as you have changed into your good clothes to go to an evening show.

Guest Avatar
john jervis 9th January, 2015 @ 11:53

Love the way you express yourself, keep it coming.

Guest Avatar
Helen 9th January, 2015 @ 13:15

This is one of the many, many, MANY reasons why statutory 3 year contracts are not a good ides.
As agents we have dealt with this situation quite a lot. As you rightly say, they are jointly and severally liable for the rent until the end of the fixed term of the tenancy agreement. If the tenancy runs into a periodic, they should still both be liable. What should happen is that the person who has moved out should give notice that they are leaving at the end of the fixed term, then you should issue a new tenancy for the sole occupier if they have been paying the rent ok. It would be unusual for the person who has moved out to voluntarily keep paying rent after the fixed term, but if Eddie is happy to do that, you could let the tenancy run on into a periodic.

The Landlord Avatar
The Landlord 9th January, 2015 @ 14:33

No kids involved, but the fact he's agreed to pay rent for 2 years as part of the settlement makes me inclined to believe she'll stick around for that duration. But then again, I wouldn't be surprised at all if she vacates at the end of the tenancy (next year)! Either way, as long as the rent is paid.

Good point about circumstances changes in the future, particularly about her meeting someone else! Never thought about that. God, that could be horrific... for me.
n my blog post
Never even considered that she could potentially qualify and become a DSS tenant. Glad you mentioned it, so thank you! I'm going to add something about it in the main post because I think it's a really crucial point.

Of course, it won't change my opinion of my tenant and I'm confident I'll continue to receive rent, but I know how ludicrous the benefits system is, which may concern me.

Sounds like you just encountered an awfully unappreciative landlord. I definitely would have appreciated your efforts as long as everything was rectified sufficiently. However, while I would encourage all tenants to independently resolve trivial and light maintenance issues like blocked drains, I would like to be kept in the loop of any work relating to things like the electrics and gas/pipes etc.

Thanks for the comments folks!

The Landlord Avatar
The Landlord 9th January, 2015 @ 14:42

You definitely did the right thing!

Always stay clear of your tenants domesticated/personal issues. This also includes conflicts with neighbours! Landlords can't be responsible for other peoples feuds and/or anti-social behaviors.

Ha Nige, I can always rely on you to shower us with personal negative experiences regarding tenants. I'm starting to genuinely believe you've seen it all!

Thanks John, appreciate it :)

Couldn't agree with you more! The statutory 3 year contracts is an insane idea!

I believe Eddie agreed as part of the separation settlement. I think it's something they agreed between themselves, and not necessarily a legal obligation. But as Andy (comment #2) pointed out, circumstances for the sole occupant could change (e.g. she could shack up with someone else), which may discourage Eddie to continue paying. I guess only time will tell.

Hopefully they'll resolve their issues, not really for their own gains, but for the sake of making my life easier. Obviously that's the most important factor!

Guest Avatar
Nige 9th January, 2015 @ 15:20

Interestingly enough I seem to have the best tenants now that I have ever had. Its gradually sinking into them that the day of the free meal ticket is vanishing. That together with the computer age really coming in means they can run but they can't hide.
Localization rules are helping together with new DHSS rules. The supply of houses is diminishing for those who dont obey basic requirements of being a tenant. My friend works in a very large agency/estate agency and gets at least 3 requests a day because they are in rent arrears and sections 21 or 8 have been issued. As the council made one simple rule. If you are evicted for rent arrears then you are deemed to have made yourself homeless then their obligation is reduced to basic emergency accommodation. Her advice? Don't think the landlord was going to fund your smoking or the x box or widescreen tv. Get the priorities right. And that is just what my tenants seem to be doing !! Whey hey !!
PS my friend actually lost her job in a letting agency a year ago due to 2 large landlords deciding to do their own management. She took a £7k pay cut. One month and one day in arrears the mortgage company stomped on her. No help from DHSS here. Yes she cut back and survived !!

Guest Avatar
Charlotte 9th January, 2015 @ 15:42

AAAAAAAAHHH The landlord, you have cursed me!

I was reading your blog approximately one ago hour thinking, oh well I've not had that one happen to me.

And now I have literally just had an email, saying Mrs XXXX has separated from her husband and can she have a tenancy in her own name so she can claim.

AAAAAAAHH The Landlord - what have you done!

What would you guys do in this situation?

Guest Avatar
Nige 9th January, 2015 @ 15:51

Simple. If they have been good tenants keep em if you can.
One port of call if she will go on benefits is local HB rates. New rules have limits on rent which mean for example (may vary) that rent cannot be more that £25 than HB.

Guest Avatar
Charlotte 9th January, 2015 @ 15:54

Thanks Nige, I will be fine with the rent. They have been tenants for one month.

It seems as if it was all planned.

I think as the HB rate will cover the rent I will allow it but will keep the husbands details on file to use as a chase if there are issues.

Guest Avatar
Nige 9th January, 2015 @ 16:07

@ Charlotte. Never trust anyone in this game.
The smiley face hides some devious reasons.
HB takes time to sort/pay so tell them until that is paid you expect rent as usual. Ask her meet you and go through the contract. There is a good chance hubby read it she didn't. And if she applies for benefits this should be asap...not tomorrow...and ask for the receipt she can request to say she has made an application.

Guest Avatar
Benji 9th January, 2015 @ 18:46


'can she have a tenancy in her own name so she can claim.'

That doesn't sound right to me.
I have certainly had tenants in a similar position who have claimed without a new sole tenancy agreement.
Ask who at the council has advised her that and speak to them or even better, ask for the section in the council manual and do a search and read it up for yourself.

'It seems as if it was all planned.'

It does.
If she came to you tomorrow as a new prospective tenant would you take her on? I don't think I would.

When you took them on originally, did they have a guarantor or RGI?

Can she get a guarantor now?

Did you check them thoroughly?

Who is the lead tenant for the deposit?

Can she come up with a new deposit when the original is released?

'What would you guys do in this situation?'

I'd make it clear the husband is still liable for the rent, their domestic problems are their own affair.
I don't like being conned and I doubt this will end well so I'd serve a section 21 now.
I'd also offer to release them early from the agreement provided all rent is paid up until they leave.


'rent cannot be more that £25 than HB.'

I've never heard of that before and I know of lots of tenancies that breach that (some of mine included).

Do you have a link?

I think you are mistaken, could be wrong, please confirm.

Guest Avatar
Helen 9th January, 2015 @ 19:11

Charlotte - our council would require a tenancy in her sole name before she can claim. If her husband is still on the tenancy, then he is liable for the rent as well and if he is working there is no valid claim for housing benefit. You are in a legal Catch 22. If you issue a new tenancy, the wife can claim benefit, but you can not get any money from the husband and if you keep the same tenancy she can't claim. It would be worth asking the husband to be the guarantor for the new tenancy. That way she could claim, but he would be liable if she defaults on the rent.
Re the deposit; he will need to sign an agreement to say he will allow the deposit to be used for her sole tenancy, unless she can find the money herself. You will need to re-serve the prescribed information and re-protect the deposit.

Landlord - I agree with Andy. Eddie may have agreed to pay the rent, but if Dorothy pisses him off he may well stop paying. I am thinking that shagging her landlord might well do the trick! My advice - hands off!!

The Landlord Avatar
The Landlord 9th January, 2015 @ 19:54

Haha, Jesus, what are the odds? Must be some weird voodoo shizzle, or perhaps we're connected somehow! I recently read about something called 'Soul Connection', it's about a deep link between two people. I always assumed it was Astrological junk, but this proves otherwise! I'm going to go out on a limb and say that your star crossed paths with my moon today! We're basically twins! Amazing how both the separations occurred so early on in the tenancy.

Anyways, back onto the issue, it actually does sound planned. They may not even be separated, this could be just a ploy to scam the system.

I think Benji & Helen covered a lot of it.

I'd personally be reluctant to renew the tenancy with her as the sole tenant, because then the husband will have no liability to pay the rent (as Helen said, it's a catch 22).

I think the best thing for you to do is actually talk to her and find out all the details, and then go from there e.g. can she get a guarantor, is the husband willing to continue to pay the rent (if so, who for how long?), can she afford to pay the rent without his help etc.

Also, from my experience, the council doesn't just hand over benefits to new claimants. The process can take time to set up, and you may lose out on rent during that period. But they do often backdate the payments. Perhaps another reason not to renew the tenancy.

If it all seems fishy after further investigation, I would serve a s21, but preferably, get them to surrender the tenancy under the basis that you're not willing to give her sole occupancy (she may understand and willingly to surrender).

The Landlord Avatar
The Landlord 9th January, 2015 @ 19:55


As usual, your wisdom hasn't landed on deaf ears. I'll keep the mouse in the house for now :)

Guest Avatar
Benji 9th January, 2015 @ 19:59


What you say makes good sense.

Although there is no way I would give her a new tenancy without some very strong safeguards.

Re the deposit, that means that at some stage this dodgy tenant has the deposit in their hands.

I wouldn't trust them.

Guest Avatar
Nige 9th January, 2015 @ 20:12

@ benji,
I only refer to our local area. Yes I have had tenants who overshoot the amount paid by LHA and HB. This is result of the so called bedroom allowance. I just phoned my friend in the agents for confirmation. It would appear that when a tenancy is granted HB/LHA require a copy of tenancy agreement before making assessment. She had a case where rent was £650 and max LHA was £595 . Tenants were not allowed to take it.The rejection was done on the basis that LHA was assessed on income /circumstances and therefore where was the extra money coming from ?. I know there are contingency funds that can be called on to avoid eviction where for example a rent increase takes the rent over the £595 + £25 . As said the localization acts are allowing different areas different rules.In our area landlords are of course bumping rents up over the LHA+£25 to stop tenants on benefits. All this said I have a tenant who gets £465 per 4 weeks on a £619.50 pcm rent and he makes it up. Whether this is contingency plan money or not is not my concern as long as I am getting my money which I am. I have a feeling that he will be pulled up by some benefits department to account for where that is coming from. Poignant as there are 1 adult+ 1 child in 3 bed house. I have a feeling the guarantor is stepping in on this case and I am on good terms with tenant but he is the type to avoid work rather than get a low paid job and get tax credits or whatever.

The Landlord Avatar
The Landlord 9th January, 2015 @ 20:18


I for one welcome that policy. But it might be a bit unfair in many cases. I used to have a DSS tenant that had a shortfall of £100, but her mum used to pay it without fail. But in general, I think it's a good policy that will protect many landlords.

Guest Avatar
Nige 10th January, 2015 @ 00:48

It has certainly tightened up the system to stop those who skip thinking they are going to get help from the councils after leaving the previous landlord with debts and unpaid matters. No longer can they just run and the landlord is left using all the tools of section 21s and 8's to gain possession of their property whilst the property remains vunerable security wise.

I don't make the rules but this current system favours ALL tenants who are decent and above board and definitely stomps on those who have no intention of doing anything but moving from one landlord to another leaving a trail of devastation.

Guest Avatar
Smithy 10th January, 2015 @ 06:50

- Don't take sides. If you say to one of them that the other is a complete b*****d, you can guarantee that two weeks later they will be back together and your comment will be shared. The one with whom you sided will declare you are the villain of the piece, and the next thing you know they will be blaming you for the split in the first place.

- Don't seek too much information. If Social Services have put her and the children in a refuge because of violence, you are better off not knowing where they are. So when he asks you if you know their whereabouts, you can honestly say 'no'.

Also if you think one of them has been cheating with someone else, you should turn a blind eye. There could be an innocent explanation - but you don't want to know. So when the other one asks you about it you can honestly say you know nothing.

- Really, really try to remain neutral. When you hear the sob story from one side, you will think it's all the other one's fault. Until you hear the sob story from the other one. We never know what goes on inside someone else's relationship.

- Always remember that you are not their Social Worker, Debt Counsellor, housing advisor, marriage guidance counsellor etc. You are just their landlord.

Guest Avatar
Benji 10th January, 2015 @ 11:15

Cheers for the reply.

Maybe your area is different but this refers to the country as a whole;

According to Government figures, 48% of people on
LHA already face shortfalls between their benefit and their rent, with the average shortfall being £23/week.

I posted that link as it states the situation clearly. Since the LHA changes, the number is now closer to 2/3rds of claimants and the £100/month shortfall has increased.

This is how they are making up the shortfall;

In total, 42 per cent of respondents with a shortfall said they had cut back on household essentials (such as heating and food) and 36 per cent had cut back on non-essentials. Just over a third had borrowed money from family or friends to make up the shortfall. Three out of ten claimants said they had drawn on their other benefit income (such as Income Support (IS) or Jobseeker’s
Allowance (JSA)) to make up the shortfall between their rent and the LHA that they received.

People are also allowed to claim even if they have savings of up to £6000 (or more in some circumstances).

Guest Avatar
andrewa 10th January, 2015 @ 17:59

As long as the rent is paid you are ok, when this ceases to be so, out she goes. As far as seduction goes...............old South African saying "do not shit where you eat".

The Landlord Avatar
The Landlord 10th January, 2015 @ 18:01

Agreed. Essentially, stay away from the drama and strictly remain a landlord, no more, no less.

Ha, we say "Don't shit on your own doorstep"

Guest Avatar
Nige 10th January, 2015 @ 18:17

Maybe in SA they eat non paying tenants. Now there's an idea !!

Guest Avatar
David 10th January, 2015 @ 19:01

What kind of cuckold idiot is this, his wife sleeps with someone else and he pays 2 years rent as a settlement when there are no kids and she works?

SHE should be paying the settlement, including backpay!

@TheLandlord you need to tell us was it Ryan Air or Easyjet, I imagine the former? I banned myself from flying with them some years ago, I have never know a company who has more disdain for their customers. I remember one time they kept my lot waiting by the gate for 2 hours, finally I got a coffee and croissants at cafe kiosk right by the gate, one hat charges £6 a drink and £4.50 for a bag of crisps. I just sat back down and they called us for boarding, the delightful Nazi flight attendant then told me I could not take the purchased food or drinks on the flight. When I protested the Biatch told me that if I did not comply immediately they would not board me. So I binned the best part of £40 of food and drinks. Then on the flight they wanted to charge me £3.50 for an instant maxwell house in a pre-packed plastic cup.

That was the last straw, after years of abuse, being charged for stuff for a disabled child on top of the plethora of other over the top charges, I had enough.

I declined when a friend even offered to pay for me to have a Ryan air flight, I pointed out the that last time the airport was 70 miles from where I thought I was flying to (thus requiring a hire car), that the baggage allowance was half any other airline and they had a scam on the return journey that did not let you bring hand luggage even though it was within Ryan Air TINY Size regs, they had a grid in the airport that was smaller than the refs. Again the threat of pay up or give up or don't fly was dictated by the nastiest vermin (her previous job was in camp x-ray but she was fired for being too nice). They also had a scam where they had a 2nd member of staff who put his foot on the belt so you came up overweight. They got really pissed when I hung around and warned other passengers.

They have tried to improve their reputation but it is in the blood of the CEO and thus the organisation, he has all the discretion of Gerald Ratner. He even wanted to remove the loos to make room for more seats.

@Nige "New rules have limits on rent which mean for example (may vary) that rent cannot be more that £25 than HB" I did not hear about that, what Council do you know has that rule? It is a real "know your place" rule, thou shalt only rent a shithole. I know the max they can claim in total is limited to £500 a week and after seeing "how to get a Council House" it is hard not to agree albeit that the only people who seem to get a place are from foreign shores or here for 30 years but can't speak English so they get an interpreter too.

I disagree with that policy, a friend of mine split with his wife, ended up homeless got no support from state. He took on a 2 bed place so he could have his kids over at weekends and once in the week. The rent was £75 over the 1 bed LHA rate. He started a business from nothing and was never short or late paying the rent. Anyone can fall off the ladder, it could be YOU!

Guest Avatar
bluebird4ever 10th January, 2015 @ 21:09

Stay away, a wide birth, things may settle down.He may return
just collect your money.
She may go after a few house inspections,so keep a low profile

good luck

Guest Avatar
Nige 11th January, 2015 @ 01:25

@ David.
I can assure you that I have been at the bottom of the pile more than once in my life. Each time it made me determined not to be at the bottom and get off my backside and try and do something. No benefits ever given..ever.
As you say the tenant started a business from scratch. Don't anyone tell you it can't be done. At 15 my daughter was buying various sexy type toys from the £1 or 99p store and punting them out at £5 plus pp on ebay.
I have a good idea what she was turning over as mug had to get the packages to the post office and there were never less than 3 a day !!!

Guest Avatar
David 11th January, 2015 @ 11:27

I agree with you Nige, but we all need a base of operations, i.e. a home and internet connection to run such a business.

I do not think it is a right of the State to dictate where someone can live, they can of course say they will only pay the rent for the appropriate number of bedrooms.

The tenant and the Landlord are the ones with the responsibilty to check affordability. I know a woman who has 3 kids, 2 of them are disabled, she works and has always paid her rent. She gets a lot of money in DLA, her child tax credits are higher because of the disabled kids. She earns around £16k before tax but gets about £32k after tax.

The DLA is provided to make the "living" with disability easier, that includes adapting a room perhaps.

There is no way she is ever going to not be able to pay the rent and it is not for a Local Council to dictate. Also what would happen if someone had already secured the tenancy, are they seriously saying that a tenant has to leave.

A landlord that lets a 4 bed house to a family needs to consider they could fall off the ladder and end up on benefits and only be entitled to rent for 3 bed because of the ages or sex of the children.

What Council was it?

Guest Avatar
Nige 11th January, 2015 @ 12:27

I won't get into the usual argument on benefits etc but as you say once they cotton on to how much they can get they have a very decent standard of living financially.
Its actually not the state who pays benefits anyway. Its from the pot of taxes we pay and therefore we all pay this by higher VAT, income tax, NI or anything else thats deducted.
Funny how the benefit payments for not working are substantially higher than the state pension. Something wrong here.

I have a tenant on basically minimum wage, 4 kids, wife not working and claims legitimately for disablement benefits.He is a great tenant. Money up front, does own repairs, borrows my driveway to fix cars etc. The net income he receives is substantially more than I get from being a landlord.But I respect his attitude. Never whinges, works awful hours and so on. After 10 years he is moving because house is not big enough to cater for disabled child.Yes he is getting help, choice of social housing to suit needs etc. I will be sad to lose him and council are supporting him. Why? Because he plays by basic rules.

Going back to rent differentials. Yes everyone can rent what they like. But the cap is on how much the public pot will pay and as I pointed out there are contingency funds. But as has been pointed out tenants can still get benefits when they have £6k in the bank and this I believe is going up. My friend got zero benefits because she owned her property and only got basic jobseekers.

If as has been also said relatives or friends are helping make up the rent then this is as it should be. I had to support my daughter through college. But if they have access to funds which are being paid regularly by a third party then this is an income and this is where the problem lies. It is classed as income and therefore benefits are adjusted accordingly.

I never question my tenants as to where the income is coming from but the authorities do. I know most are on some fiddle which I turn a blind eye to.

If we go back to the original post I had a similar situation. Married couple split and she rented one of my houses. They still saw each other daily and she had brand new furniture and bought a second car. I found the house full of fags and booze after they were going French beer runs. After 1 year of her living off benefits they reunited. So in effect for one year their lifestyle was paid by us. Something wrong here.

Genuine ones yes...not the ones who think the world owes them a living.

Guest Avatar
Emmagain 11th January, 2015 @ 18:44

Nige said rent cannot be more that £25 than HB.

That sounds like a load of old bollocks.
Cut the bullshit stories.
Just answer the question-
What council was it?

Guest Avatar
Nige 11th January, 2015 @ 19:46

Well Emmagain I don't really give a flying fig whether it is as you say a lot of old bollocks. I'm retired and like many landlords I speak to I am selling up. As I said unfortunately I will be evicting good tenants with plenty of notice and as they are finding out its almost impossible for them to find properties that they can afford any more.And yes I offer all the support I can.
My tenants have been aware for 2 years that the tenancy may end as this is my pension. They chose to stay. 3 beds that I rent for £595 will fetch the new owners £750 so tell me where the tenant will find the £155 extra a month as the max LHA rates are set per area.? And they are now liable for 15% council tax adding another £10 a month. (again not my fault)
I have just spoken to someone regarding this who rents a housing association house. Before they got their tenancy they had to jump through 101 hoops including all incomes and whether they would be able to afford the rent on benefits. Bank statements had to be produced showing personal flows of all incomes and if they couldn't afford they didn't get.. I have friends who have kept properties vacant for over 2 years and they are subject to penalty council tax rather than go through the complications of renting.
My local council scheme consisting of offering a deposit bond for disadvantaged people ( all but one of my properties are on this scheme and the property is inspected for standards by the council) is having virtually zero take up now by landlords.
If private landlords are attacked or are subjected to this constant tirade of rules and regs plus accusations I know exactly where this will lead as I see it happening now. Property is being mopped up by less than scrupulous landlords(often foreigners who hop back to their own country to avoid prosecution) who are far harder on tenants than accredited landlords.

So go attack someone else Emmagain. I offer good service to my tenants at affordable rents in inspected properties. I don't make DHSS rules. Find out which council yourself.

Guest Avatar
Emmagain 11th January, 2015 @ 20:31

That was hard work Nige.

What you said was, rent cannot be more that £25 than HB.

What you meant was, that is what one of the housing associations in your local area requires.

That isn't 'DHSS' rules, it is just what some social landlord has decided as the criteria for letting out their properties.

It is a very different thing.

The Landlord Avatar
The Landlord 11th January, 2015 @ 21:03

Ha, you're going to start me off on a rant!

I confess, it was the former. I was going to mention the horrendous blue faux leather chairs in my post to make it obvious, but for one reason or another I decided to keep their identity anonymous.

I've had a few shocking experiences with them. Just on this trip alone, the flight was over an hour delayed, which I could deal with, but NO ONE thought it was a good idea to make an announcement and explain why, they deemed it more appropriate to just leave us waiting/guessing. I thought that was shockingly weird.

Coincidentally, I also fell for the coffee scam on this particular journey. I've always resisted because I assumed that the "Freshly brewed, authentic Italian coffee" (or something along those lines) sales pitch on the back of the seats (you know it's a budget airline when they're putting up advertisements for their own refreshments on the back of the seats) was total BS. However, I was craving caffeine on this journey home so I thought, "what the hell, can't be that bad", so I buckled and ordered a cappuccino.

The BS sales pitch was confirmed. Freshly brewed my ass (but I bet they can legally justify their sales pitch by breaking down the definition of "freshly brewed"). They basically served me instant coffee with powdered milk in one of those pre-packed cups you mentioned. It didn't even taste like coffee and the obscure after-taste made me concerned for my health. My naivety (and trust in their adverts) led me to believe that they actually installed proper coffee machines in their planes. Thinking about it now, man, I was stupid to even contemplate that possibility- my senses must have been impaired by matey's body fumes. Why would they essentially increase the comfort of their passengers and increase the weight of the plane for no reason? I'm NEVER falling for that scam again, despite my caffeine craving.

My main gripe with these budget airlines is that they charge excessively for EVERYTHING beyond the bog standard service, notably the cost of checking in luggage, which often costs more than the actual flight! They even charge extra to pre-book a standard allocated seat, which is crazy. I would understand if you're booking extra leg space, but not for the standard seats! They're trying to milk it every which way.

I think I heard a few years ago that they were going to charge for using the toilet, as opposed to removing them. I remember hearing about it on the news, but that bright idea may have been scrapped, probably because it was against health and safety.

Rant over!

Guest Avatar
Nige 12th January, 2015 @ 00:24

You wait until you travel on the budget budget airlines. Flew on one and hand luggage had to be placed in front of you between the knees. It was E10 to put in overhead locker. Or the Bulgarian inflight meal that was a chunk of cheese and slices of cucumber. When another passenger said they had ordered vegetarian the cheese was removed and replaced with more cucumber. However in the latest economy cuts and get as many in as you can they are currently experimenting with standing seats. Yep 23 inch legroom and you semi stand like those sloping bus stop seats.
Yep mysteriously Ryanair never had milk of sugar for the coffee on one flight !!!
Nothing beats a 12 hour stop on Dehli tarmac with external aircon unable to keep inside cool. Then sitting on takeoff with aircraft on full throttle to 'test' engines again and them failing. No food available because they could not locate a safe source. We got to Dubai before engines failed again. 48 hours stuck on a plane.

The Landlord Avatar
The Landlord 12th January, 2015 @ 19:20


You win :)

I think I'll avoid budget, budget airlines like the plague. To be honest, I didn't even think it was possible to go 'more budget' than EasyJet/Ryanair.

Guest Avatar
Nige 12th January, 2015 @ 19:31

Think you can travel cheaper in Europe but it involves hanging onto a lorry axle at Calais !!

To be honest we do get some flights cheap when you consider the tax on departures.

I looked up rail travel within uk and choked at some of the prices. Even a 1 mile trip to the shops on a bus here is £2. (unless you have a bus pass like me !!)

More worrying is the latest report on servicing of aircraft. It is/was done in house and the changes mean that it can be farmed out anywhere. (looking forward to seeing 747s parked outside Joe's MOT station)

Guest Avatar
David 14th January, 2015 @ 16:31

@Emmagain be nice we can all have different opinions but no need for that.

@Landlord That reminds me I was messing around with Google translate and found this symbol (كسها)which I reserve for the chief exec of Ryanair. If he dies before me I will visit his grave, plant weeds and piss on it.

I heard that the aftertaste is because they use the "not drink water" (supposed to be for cleaning chemical toilet) to make the coffee.

Once I flew with them and they wanted to charge me for checking my bag which had a 10kg limit (24kg to 32kg elsewhere), so I decided to keep it under 5kg and have hand luggage only.

Of course I did not know that the security means you can carry on a 200ml aftershave (£48) in fact all my ash things got nabbed and binned.

If RyanAir went bust I would open that spare bottle of bubbly that I have been saving for a good occasion.

Sadly other airlines are copying them in this insane charge for every line item nonsense.

Most companies spend years building up their brand and reputation, this one seems determined to have the worst in the industry.

I have been on some cheap flights to Latin America, one where the only food or drink for 11 hours was a 30g packet of peanuts and a Rum with coke. On the internal flight I am not saying the plane was an old crate but they started the plane with the propeller and there was a puncture repair on the tyre! I do not mind cheap cheap but I hate the way RyanAir revel in ripping you off.

@nige, it really makes me sad to see you selling up with the impact on those families, it is understandable and what you highlight is the problem a lot of people face, a 25% hike in rents.

That is why they have no choice but to ask for social housing and why they get angry when they see "how to get a Council house" where most of the people getting them are fake assylum seekers or "our family argues a lot so give a home". The best quote was from the woman told she could not afford her rent and she said she would cancel Sky.

I do not have Sky because I can't afford it, I do not even have a TV License because I realised that my analog TV can't receive any channels so no live TV and by buying a NowTV box with no subscriptions (£10) I can watch catchup TV.

I have paid a fortune in tax in my lifetime and I was told "we do not have an obligation to you" when presenting homeless. I was told to go the the charity that meet twice a week in the Church. Not even a leaflet. No special treatment, no translaters laid on by the Council, sweet FA.

Actually I could claim disability but I will not and by the time I have to I will be ready to die.

Those wonderful Con-servatives have way more cuts planned, the FT said that based on reports from the office of budget responsibity "the numbers do not add up" and the cuts will need to be much deeper to achive what they say.

Then we get the energy companies go get a 30% cut in energy costs (with more to come after oil price down) and just one gives us a paltry 3%. When these Bar Stewards put the prices up they blamed the oil price and we had to pay more immediately. Now they say it is because they buy futures, yet we all know they buy from their own companies to hide their obscene profits.

Now that is a rant!

Guest Avatar
Nige 14th January, 2015 @ 17:08

Yep but as my x grabbed everything she could except one small pension I don't really have an option.The 'married' deal was that I had property as pension and she had her business and the 25+years on 4 pension schemes. And then 2007 hit.

Just out of interest everyone blames one party or another. The current round of benefit cuts were actually published by labour prior to conservatives winning. And if you check political history you will find that measures implimented by one party are very rarely reversed by the incoming one.

Yes I will be kind of sad to have to 'evict' my tenants but in straight economic terms together with commercial valuations the properties will need updating or at least refreshing. I have noticed a trend here lately though. Houses are being sold at market value with tenants sitting. Something that has been rarely seen around here. Its all based on returns per capital input so houses are actually achieving higher than I would have expected than in the past.

Guest Avatar
D Moore 24th August, 2015 @ 20:59

Unbeknown to me, my married tenants have split up at some point and she has just remarried someone else and they are both now living in my property.

I have a joint tenancy in the names of Mr and Mrs Priddey and have done for 3 years. It has been renewed every 12 months and supposedly Mr and Mr Priddey have been signing it. It was only renewed in April 2015 and I made a point of asking her if there were any changes, I was made aware via facebook and the council phoning me to ask who was living in my property as Housing Benefit was being paid, that she was not living with her husband, but a new partner

I have just found out via Facebook that she has married her partner and that Mr and Mrs Sutton are now living in my property and not Mr and Mrs Priddey. She hasn't told me of any changes in occupiers, is my tenancy agreement invalid and how do I go about changing it? .... Would I want to? as a letting agent vetted Mr and Mrs Priddey and there are guarantor in place .... I don't want to add Mr Sutton to the tenancy without credit checks etc... Did the tenancy end when Mr Priddey moved out?

Guest Avatar
Nige 24th August, 2015 @ 23:02

If there is a guarantor there are 3 parties to the agreement. Guarantor and Mrs A and Mr A. I would imagine that the tenancy is also written as ''jointly and severally liable''

Now that Mrs A married Mr B this does not change the terms of the original agreement. It may however, as you state lead to Mr B technically being a sub letting tenant.

My first reaction would be to consider if you want to keep Mrs A as a tenant. If you do write to Mr A and the guarantor and work towards an agreement to renew the tenacy in different names. (See my earlier post where tenant gave his ex wife my house !!)

You must also get a release of deposits from the deposit scheme and transfer to the new tenancy.

The housing benefit claim is not so much a problem if you are getting the rent. If there is a guarantor then they are still liable until released. (or until tenancy is ended and a new one started.

From a logistical point of view it might be worth issueing a section 21 notice to end the original tenancy and then start a new tenancy in the name of Mrs B and Mr B subject to credit checks and expenses incurred.

Go visit and see if you can agree a solution.Write to guarantor so they are aware. If not its replace the tenants with new ones. If your area is like ours then tenants will be very aware how difficult it would be to get help and should cooperate.

Guest Avatar
Liam 21st September, 2022 @ 18:11

This has just happened to me (I know this post is years and years old)

The tenant has asked to stay in the property and pat the rent but wants the tenancy in her own name. Can I do that? Are there protocols to follow? Any advice is appreciated!

















Your personal information will *never* be sold or shared to a 3rd party. By submitting your details, you agree to our Privacy Policy.

I want more info on...