What's a tenancy protection scheme? Discussion

Jowo_2

scarlet_macaw wrote: »

In practice therefore are you suggesting that when one of four jointly and severally liable tenants wishes to leave before the expiry of the fixed term, the other three tenants should pay their share of the rent? .

Tenants should make themselves familiar with what they are signing up for and understand their responsibilities - joint tenancy makes them jointly and severally liable. From a legal perspective, there is no such thing as individual tenants, there is merely A tenant. If they fail to understand that they must operate as a team, that a landlord doesn't have to identify 'who' is responsible because they all are, that's not the landlords problem. Why should a landlord run themselves ragged and take the financial hit when one of the tenants doesn't cooperate with the agreement? They are able to take civil action against the defaulting tenant themselves, if they wish.

scarlet_macaw wrote: »

or perhaps that they should terminate the tenancy early, forfeit their deposits and risk being persued for breach of contract for the rent due for the remainder of the term?
.

Yes, tenants should take responsibility for failure to adhere to a legally binding agreement and should either negotiate its early surrender or accept the consequences. It's a two way street - the landlord could not cancel the AST during the fixed term so they are offered protection.

Their other option is to ask the landlord to accept a replacement tenant, assign the tenancy to them and get the outgoing tenant to pay any advertising expenses with finding the new tenant.

scarlet_macaw wrote: »

Landlords allow this process to assist groups of sharers and allow them some flexibility, not to make life difficult - It is timre that those who advise tenants took the same approach.
.

Flexibility should not be assumed. Read the terms and conditions of a contract and understand them before signing it and assuming that a landlord will be happy when it is reneged.

chucknorris

scarlet_macaw wrote: »

A nice theoretical reply - and wrong to boot!

In practice therefore are you suggesting that when one of four jointly and severally liable tenants wishes to leave before the expiry of the fixed term, the other three tenants should pay their share of the rent? - or perhaps that they should terminate the tenancy early, forfeit their deposits and risk being persued for breach of contract for the rent due for the remainder of the term?

Landlords allow this process to assist groups of sharers and allow them some flexibility, not to make life difficult - It is timre that those who advise tenants took the same approach.

Mydeposits sceme rules (rule B2) make provision for this process.

I'm not sure if I did something wrong, but this is what I did, did I do something wrong?

We had 3 professional sharers, one of them moved out and they got a friend in to replace her. I merely edited the details on Mydeposits website deleting her name and adding the new tenant's name, and re-issued the amended deposit certificate to them for resigning. Did I do something wrong?

Obviously an exchange of letters took place and a copy of the contract was attached and therefore issued to the new incoming sharer who agreed to replace the old sharer and accept the terms and conditions of the contract.

scarlet_macaw

chucknorris wrote: »

I'm not sure if I did something wrong, but this is what I did, did I do something wrong?

We had 3 professional sharers, one of them moved out and they got a friend in to replace her. I merely edited the details on Mydeposits website deleting her name and adding the new tenant's name, and re-issued the amended deposit certificate to them for resigning. Did I do something wrong?

Obviously an exchange of letters took place and a copy of the contract was attached and therefore issued to the new incoming sharer who agreed to replace the old sharer and accept the terms and conditions of the contract.

According to the mydeposits rules you need to get a dated deed of assignment from all the tenants (old and new) and it must be produced to them. In addition assignments can only take place during the fixed AST period, not after it has lapsed into a statutory periodic tenancy.

NickBMX

Hi,

We've just finished our tenancy, and as part of our contract, were required to pay the fees for a independent checkout. However, the contract does not mention the cost (they said that they didn't know what the company would charge the following year, and that it depended on how long we stayed).

We've now been charged £115 for this, and were told that it's in our interests because it means the landlord is not able to claim for unreasonable things. But it strikes me that £115 is a fairly substantial deduction from our deposit and rather undermines the point of having the scheme in the first place. Does anyone actually know if this is allowed? If it's relevant, we're in thedisputeservice.co.uk scheme.

Thanks for your help,

Nick

clutton_2

""as under most of the schemes the landlord has to agree to submit to arbitration as a condition of belonging to the scheme""

this is incorrect - landlord or tenant can refuse to use arbitration - i do not see why refusal to use it "implies guilt" .....

in my view a judge will give a much clearer and fairer decision on a difficult deposit-dispute - and at least i get a chance to argue my case, rather than (as DPS) have an anonymous un-qualified person make a unilateral ill-informed decision against which there is no appeal mechanism

Ste_C

Would any landlords on here accept a smaller deposit if the tennant offered to pay 3 months rent up front?

I may be renting soon but the deposit being asked for is ridiculous and I want to negotiate it down.

clutton_2

i would never accept a lower deposit - a deposit is there for landlords protection - in the same way that teh Deposit scheme is there for tenants protection

you are being given custodianship of an assets worth sometimes hundreds of thousands of pounds.

rent up front is no guarantee of a decent tenant - sorry if that is not what you want to hear .....

a deposit is the only way a landlord has any chance at all of recuperating damage-loss and unpaid rent - and even then we often lose out as a small number of tenants refuse to leave forwarding addresses when they leave

if you plan to run an excellent tenancy and not leave damage or unpaid rent where is the problem with producing a fair deposit ?

i now charge one and a half months rent as a deposit

if you wanted to reduce the deposit i ask for, i would not give you a tenancy

Ste_C

I wouldn't rent off you then, simple.

tbs624

scarlet_macaw wrote: »

In practice therefore are you suggesting that when one of four jointly and severally liable tenants wishes to leave before the expiry of the fixed term, the other three tenants should pay their share of the rent? - or perhaps that they should terminate the tenancy early, forfeit their deposits and risk being persued for breach of contract for the rent due for the remainder of the term?

In practice that is exactly what a tenancy with J&SL means and , as I am sure you are aware, a LL may of course only charge Ts reasonable costs in those circumstances until new Ts can be found to take up a new tenancy.

However, assuming that a replacement T has been found and agreed upon, I am suggesting that the LL handles the deposit appropriately by receiving it direct from each new T and providing the written proof that the deposit has been properly registered with all current Ts names properly logged on the certificate . It is not unusual for a T to move out ( by mutual agreement) and yet have to wait a considerable length of time to receive the return of their share of the overall deposit from an incoming tenant, with little support from the LL.

Despite your personal view, it is absolutely not wrong to say that it is the LL’s full responsibility to (a) ensure that deposits are properly registered and (b) ensure the appropriate return of the deposit. It is , as I said in my previous post, categorically not something that can be passed to Ts to sort out for themelves.

scarlet_macaw wrote: »

Landlords allow this process to assist groups of sharers and allow them some flexibility, not to make life difficult - It is timre that those who advise tenants took the same approach.

That's a lovely thought but most LLs allow this process because it saves them time & money and some deliberately use it to undermine Ts rights. It is yet another area of the legislation that has not been thought through with enough care.

On a general note let's remember that all LLs are able to avail themselves of the custodial scheme (DPS) where no fees are chargeable.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

clutton_2

""In practice therefore are you suggesting that when one of four jointly and severally liable tenants wishes to leave before the expiry of the fixed term, the other three tenants should pay their share of the rent"

exactly so

A landlord lets a property for a set rent as defined in the AST. That rent is payable whether the tenant occupies the property or not - and the phrase jointly and severally means that ANY number of tenants must all be fully responsible to pay for the entire rent.

This is a clause in every AST i have ever read - tenants must take some responsibility for reading what they sign - getting a copy in advance of signing it and get some proper advice - once a tenant has signed they have agreed with it.....

why should the LL suffer just because tenants fall out / lose their job/ choose to leave early ?

if the LL wanted to finishe a tenancy early there wou ld be all hell let loose - but because a tenant wants to finish it early and they have not read nor understood their own legal responsibilities - its the landlords fault is it ??