Getting adult son with LD on Tenancy

[Dishtang]

Dear forum, I would appreciate some guidance. Our adult son lives with us. He is on Universal credit and PIP. We recently learned that he can claim for housing allowance. However UC said that because he is only named as an "occupier" in the tenancy agreement, he is not liable and hence cannot get housing allowance. We are moving in February 2023 and currently finalizing the new tenancy. I am having difficulty explaining to the tenancy agency on why I want our son on the tenancy. They are saying that because he cant have a credit check done, he may not be able to go on it. For context, I am his appointee and his benefits come to my account.

Thanks a lot

Sri

[Hidden]

Any decision of the LANDLORD by his agent, to exclude your son from being a named tenant on the AST would be against your son de facto and contrary to the Equality Act 2010 on at least two counts.

1. Your son can be a named TENANT with no credit reference to uphold him and you can be a TENANT along with OTHER named TENANTS, whereas a GUARANTOR for proportionate liability of the tenancy agreement arising out of a claimed EVENT of a default of your son’s contribution MAY legally mitigate your son’s NON receipt of statutory benefits forming the basis for a successful credit reference.

There is no reason that you cannot stand guarantor for your son and also be a joint and several liable party to the AST agreement itself.

2. Your son meets his proportion of the joint and several liability clause presumptive to his benefit receipts even when he does not directly receive them into his own possession due to an implied or de facto mental capacity consideration arising from a Learning Disability designation.

The liability of any tenancy agreement in the AST meaning is joint and several and so your guarantor standing for your son is a reflection of the joint and several precept and NOT an increased risk for the Landlord by his agent. because the liability in that meaning becomes an applied continuation of the premise and not an obstruction to it.

In the unlikely event of rent failure or other reasonable costs being incurred that joint and several meaning for liability in pursuance of the AST itself allows for any one person to be liable for the entire debt. As guarantor for your son that would mean a two (2) part proportion by agreement - where there are three named tenants - and a several (individual) and joint (shared) by all named tenants tort.

By offering a guarantee for your son in writing (copy and paste the relevant argument I would suggest) - you are bringing his person into visibility pursuant to the Care Act 2014. You are UPHOLDING his reasonable right to be visible as a Learning Disabled person and thereby increasing his self esteem and by that outworking his wellbeing.

The risk to yourself is that IF any tenants other than yourself and your son default, when you are essentially offering a guarantee for your son in a tort agreement, then the Landlord MAY have a reasonable ground to apply the tort against yourself entirely (seeing as your son is financially competent through your agency) WHERE in the event of a failed agreement due to rent arrears and other reasonable costs incurred - your agency is the force of the tort to add your son as a named tenant.

Of course that MAY be a mute point in your case seeing as you have a shared parental burden for your son and so one would assume that the risk is already satisfied based on a familial tie.

The AST itself will define the joint and several party meaning and you should have a copy or access to a copy of the intended AST format. to establish that simple clausal part.

As a father of a learning disabled son I have experienced this type of obstruction, as presented to yourself by your Landlords agent many times in various forms.

Taking your own expressions, which are clear enough, the legal issue MAY not be an AST agreement nor the joint and several liability clause, and neither any alteration to a standard AST tenancy agreement.

The real legal issue is your son’s reasonable and proportionate right to be visible and clearly expressed in his own person as a tenant in his own shared family home.

Setting financial instruments, of themselves, against that threshold of expression is a false construct when set into an ordinary residential meaning. In short, your Landlord would not be acting reasonably by refusing to add your son as a named tenant.

What his addition provides with regard to other considerations arising out of its effect is a separate matter and should NOT form the basis for adding your son as a named tenant. Namely, his then qualification for a claim to Housing Benefit. That may seem like a reasonable premise as you have expressed it but it is not legally tenable to your argument.

I do hope that the agent reflects on your son’s rights and informs the Landlord appropriately of your tort offer. He could if he were minded to do so, simply add your son as a named tenant without any alteration to the AST other than to hold your offer on file to form a tort offer of good intent and thus demonstrate goodwill predicated on your own judgement and financial responsibility acting for both your son’s and your own affairs.

Just my personal opinion you understand.

[Dishtang in reply to Hidden]

Thank you very much for this detailed response. I appreciate you taking the time to clarify my doubts. I am waiting to hear for the rental agency. I am really hoping that this goes through without any hitches.

[Eeviee]

hello. Just wondering if you have had any advice from citizens advice on this? Presumably the reason for having him on the tenancy is to claim some housing allowance ? I am not clear what housing allowance as my don claims housing benefit as is on legacy benefits but presumably it is part of the universal credit claim ? I believe that a person cannot claim these allowances or housing benefit if they live with parents ? I may be wrong on this so that is why I suggest you call citizens advice or look at a website called Turn2us.

[Rupertthebear]

Hi Dishtang I am having exactly the same problem .