New tenancy agreement in sole name

I was hoping to get some advice
We gave a tenant a new tenancy agreement Oct 2016 at a low rental rate ( 2 bed apartment)
Then we got caught with the RPZ commencing Jan 2017
We are now not able to increase rent for the 2 year period and when we do by only 4%
New agreement was in his sole name
Since that time his partner moved in and she had a baby Dec 2017
Would this justify a new tenancy agreement or do I leave it ?
I contacted RTB but they said they could not advise!!

The time to take action was when the apartment was sublet.

If your tenant didn't ask permission, then you could have reasonably acted as soon as you became aware.

But if you've done nothing in the last 6+ months then I suspect that would be interpreted as you consenting to the sublet.

He now has a part 4 tenancy which gives him 6 years.

Leaving aside the sub letting issue, the RPZ rules apply, even if your tenant agrees to sign a new lease you are still restricted to the 4%.

It's an interesting question in the context of what I suspect is an increasingly common scenario.

First off, the fact that your tenant now lives with his partner and child does not of itself either terminate the existing tenancy or create a new tenancy. Your tenant's partner has no rights relating to the apartment and, equally, owes you no contractual duties (eg. to pay you rent, etc.). Your contractual relationship remains exclusively with your tenant.

The fact that your tenant shares possession of the apartment with his partner and child does not of itself constitute sub-letting. The relationship between a head-tenant and sub-tenant is akin to the relationship between a landlord and tenant (i.e. the head-tenant would be entitled to rent from the sub-tenant, etc.) and there are particular statutory provisions around sub-letting. I assume that's not the case here.

It is possible that your tenant is in breach of his letting agreement with you. It is quite common (but certainly not always the case) for letting agreements to provide that the property may only be used as a private residence for the exclusive use of the tenant and to expressly prohibit the tenant from sharing possession of the property with anybody else.

If that's the case here, then you would have grounds to issue a lawful notice of termination of the tenancy. You would then be in a position to try to negotiate a new arrangement with what would become your joint tenants if you choose (although you would still be subject to the RPZ regime).

That's the legal position as I see it.

As a practical matter, if I was in your shoes, I would just accept the status quo and review the rent in October as per the RPZ formula (don't forget that you have to give 90 days' notice of any increase to the rent).

As an aside, I happen to think that the RPZ regime is grossly unfair and counter-productive in terms of achieving its stated objectives. One of the truly objectionable aspects of the regime, IMO, is that it sets landlords and tenants at loggerheads with each other instead of encouraging them to negotiate their arrangements like adults. Rant over.

Thank you both for your valued advice which is very informative. Thirsty you are right I should have acted sooner and Sarenco I agree with all your comments and my gut which has now been confirmed by you is to accept the status quo. I have had a good relationship with this tenant to date but I find the RPZ regime very frustrating, confusing (90 days notice etc.) and very unfair to people who want to be fair One final question to Thirsty: Part 4 tenancy which gives him 6 years? where do the 2 extra years come from ?

You're right - my mistake sorry, I misread the date in your post.

Leases signed after Dec 2016 get 6 year part 4 tenancy.

Anything before that is 4 years.

So if you sign a new lease you could be putting yourself in a worse position

good point! I was not aware of increase after Dec 2016! thanks Thirsty