Shared tenancy problems - Need advice please!

Fire_Fox

sp1987 wrote: »

Mitigate your losses by advertising for a new housemate wherever possible, keep records of where you have advertised.

Pay his share of the rent between you in the mean time as you are liable for it if he does not cough up.

Get his home address and if worst comes to worst serve him some nice court papers from www.moneyclaim.gov.uk for the rent during the period which you had to cover it between him leaving and you getting a new housemate in. This is why you will need to show that you have mitigated your losses by trying to fill his place asap.

Not trying to catch you out, confuzzled .... isn't it the landlord/ letting agent that needs to mitigate the outgoing tenants losses? Why are the remaining tenants more responsible for finding a replacement tenant than the outgoing tenant is?

Jowo_2

Daniel_F19 wrote: »

If this is the case, then can we refuse to pay this early exit fee on the grounds that we want him to remain jointly and severally liable?

You misunderstand the term - it is irrelevant who specifically owes rent or damages the property, a joint and several AST operates like there is only a single tenant in the property.

I can't speak for this fee (which is relatively modest compared to the rent arrears you are all liable for in the meantime) but it isn't up to the landlord to apportion the rent arrears and chase specific individual tenants. It's simply up to the tenants to sort it out themselves and pay the full rent when due.

A landlord does not need to chase after the specific defaulter - it's much easier for them to target those in the property than those that have absconded because you are obligated to deliver the full rent and responsible when it is not paid.

You could consider paying your rent arrears to the landlord and then taking small claims court action against the defaulting tenant if he does not repay you.

tbs624

Exactly when was this "Exit Fee" of £99 first notified to you? Does mention of its application appear in the original paperwork for the tenancy, whether letter from LA or within the tenancy agreement itself?

Daniel_F19

We were notified of the exit fee on friday, when the letter came. I've not got the time to search through the contract right now, but I will do so later tonight hopefully. I'm just really !!!!!! off that this guy bailed on us.

I understand what joint and several means, but surely there is still a legal obligation for each of us to pay our own share, unless otherwise agreed amongst ourselves?

Jowo_2

Daniel_F19 wrote: »

I understand what joint and several means, but surely there is still a legal obligation for each of us to pay our own share, unless otherwise agreed amongst ourselves?

How you decide to split up the rent between yourselves is up to you to determine and manage. If rent of x amount is due on x date on a joint tenancy, then that it what you are all contractually obliged to pay.

A joint AST doesn't have a 'share' of rent 'per tenant' from the landlords perspective. It may do from the tenants perspective but that's irrelevant from a legal perspective.

Should someone fail to pay, it is not the case that they are specifically in arrears - you all are.

tbs624

The general rule is that once signed up to a contract with J&SL no changes can be made within the fixed term without the consent of *all* parties, so an LA cannot simply sign one T off and release him/her from any obligation to the rest of you as joint tenants.

However, the LA/LL *can* look to any one, or all of you, to cover the full rent payments but , as Jowo says, you in turn have the option to pursue the non-payer through the County Court yourselves. Sometimes, once a student has been made aware that a CCJ is a possibility s/he suddenly becomes more interested in doing right by their fellow students until a new T can be brought in to replace them.

You may want to consider stating in writing to the LA, the LL and this other T, that the rest of you do not consent to the other house sharer being released from JS&L on payment of any proposed "exit fee" to the LA, until such time as a new T , who is acceptable to all parties, has been found to take his place. (Keep a copy of your letter.)

The LA can ask any of you/all of you as tenants to meet the reasonable costs involved in getting someone else in so do your bit too - get the vacant room advertised asap at the Uni, at spareroom.co.uk at accommodationforstudents.com etc - show that you are actively doing what you can. There *will* be other students looking for vacancies, whose own living arrangements for the forthcoming academic year haven't worked out.

Seek clarification - talk to your Uni Accommodations Officer, to the local Council's private sector rentals officer, or to someone at Shelter 0808 800 4444 ( all manner of tenancy advice not just homelessness)

Fire_Fox

Daniel_F19 wrote: »

I understand what joint and several means, but surely there is still a legal obligation for each of us to pay our own share, unless otherwise agreed amongst ourselves?

You are all individually liable for the full amount of the rent each month - if everyone bar you didn't pay you would be as responsible for ensuring the landlord received the full monthly rent as any other tenant. The landlord let the house as a unit to to the tenants as a unit: you don't each have your own share, that is a private arrangement.

You might argue that you understood the outgoing tenant should have paid 20% of the total, but it is for you to take him to the small claims court to get that money, in the mean time you must ensure the rent is paid in full. At present this tenant is partly responsible for the arrears but the letting agent will chase all of the people they can easily track down for the missing rent - so ensure you get a forwarding address from this tenant.

sp1987

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Not trying to catch you out, confuzzled .... isn't it the landlord/ letting agent that needs to mitigate the outgoing tenants losses? Why are the remaining tenants more responsible for finding a replacement tenant than the outgoing tenant is?

My point was that if the tenants wish to claim from the remaining tenant for the amounts they are out of pocket by for his rental portion after he has left via the small claims court, they will need to show to the judge's satisfaction that they have mitigated their losses to the best of their ability.

If they found out that the tenant has left and do not try to get somebody else in at all, they would be hard pushed to claim 100% losses from ''today'' until the tenancy expires. They will be told they made no effort to rectify the problem. The same would apply if the outgoing tenant found a dozen replacements and the remaining tenants rejected them all (without good reason).

''Finding'' a tenant may not be so much the issue (legally anyway) as advertising for one. The remaining tenants will not be able to claim for losses that they could have reasonably prevented. If they put ads up and nobody wants to move in then it is not their fault and they would probably get 100% losses back. I'm sure this would not be the case though as students come by the truck load and every one wants a room.

The point is, the tenant is leaving, but the remaining ones cannot just sit there and go ''no problem, we will just sit here and wait'' as it may work to their disadvantage with regard to a legal remedy later on.

I personally think the outgoing tenant sounds a pratt if he has left others in such a position without helping them out etc. Maybe that is why he did not bother to find a guarantor, who knows!

Blacksheep1979

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Not trying to catch you out, confuzzled .... isn't it the landlord/ letting agent that needs to mitigate the outgoing tenants losses? Why are the remaining tenants more responsible for finding a replacement tenant than the outgoing tenant is?

The remaining tenants will be far more motivated and probably in a better position (being at uni) to find another tenant. Whilst in theory they should be able to get their money back from the guy that's done a runner in practice that may not be the case and also if they do find someone else they won't be covering the additional rent for as long.

princeofpounds

I think that you have been given a lot of good advice, but there are a few important details and aspects that are missing.

First, yes you are jointly and severally liable. The A/LL can pursue any one of you for all the rent necessary. However, the law means that this only applies to the first four names on an AST. So if you are number 5 on the list, be aware that the agent cannot sue you for the money (although tenants 1-4 can pay and then sue you). It is the responsibility of tenants 1-4 to find the money to pay the rent and if necessary sue the missing T afterwards (or beat him up ;-) )

Secondly, the 'exit fee' is totally non-binding unless you have agreed to such a fee in your contract or in terms and conditions of business you were presented with and accepted before signing your contract. I don't know for sure, but it's probably made up and I would refuse to pay it on exactly these grounds, as it would also be interpreted as you accepting the missing T's surrender of the tenancy.

The A/LL cannot unilaterally change the contract, which is what they appear to be trying to do (and I don't know why). As suggested above, make it very clear that the contract stands and no alterations are permitted without express agreement.

One of the above posters is correct in that you must demonstrate you are attempting to mitigate your losses if you plan to sue the missing T. You cannot simply let liabilities build up. But placing an advert for a new tenant is enough evidence, you can always say that no-one applied. Of course, if you find someone suitable and the LL agrees to let them in, great. But remember, the missing tenant has not actually given any indication of surrender, so you can't attempt to effectively evict them unless they tell you in writing that they aren't planning to come back.

Of course the best solution is to locate and pressure the missing tenant. The whole thing is his fault after all.