Dual Tenancy termination pitfall

cashino

Hi,
I'm trying to get as much help/information as I possibly can about the following situation, which seems to me to be totally unfair.
You may or may not be aware that any dual tenancy agreement can be terminated by one of the parties of the dual tenancy taking their name off the tenancy agreement. This can be done without the knowledge of the other party. This ofcourse applies to millions of couples nationwide.
The circumstances in my case was that after 36 years of marriage, my wife just walked out,leaving me the only person living in the house. Later on it emerged that she was seeing another man. We have 4 grownup children and have lived in our rented 3 bedroom house for 18 years.
A few months after she left she took her name off the dual tenancy agreement, which terminated it. WHG (Walsall Housing Group) have now issued court proceedings to evict me from the property which ofcourse I do not want to leave.
I understand that this particular issue is cutting edge law at the moment but I would appreciate any help anyone could offer or indeed to hear from anyone who is or has been in a similar situation (particularly with WHG).

Regards

theartfullodger

Suggest you urgently contact CaB
http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/
or Shelter...
http://england.shelter.org.uk/
0808 800 4444

8am-8pm Monday-Friday
8am-5pm Saturday-Sunday

- both are charities & have too many requests for help these days so you may need to be patient....

I'd also contact the council as imminently homeless & also councillors & WHG - just in case they might change their minds...

Sorry to hear your story: Yes, not fair, not "justice" but it is, sadly, the law..

It's not exactly new law... as I understand it the key case is

House of Lords (Hammersmith & Fulham vs Monk, 1992)

but see (it gets a bit technical here...)

http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?s=LB+Hammersmith+%26+Fulham+v+Monk+[1992]+1+AC+478

.
Lodger

silvercar

Technically someone can't take their name off a tenancy agreement without consent of the landlord and other tenants but, any party in the joint tenancy can terminate the tenancy agreement. Therefore your wife can give notice to terminate the tenancy. You would then either need to vacate or make arrangements for a sole tenancy with the landlord. Is there a reason why the landlord won't agree to you being a sole tenant?

caeler

Could you contact them about sole tenancy? After 18 Years I'm sure they don't want to lose you.

Jowo_2

I'd book an appointment asap with your local councillor or MP to highlight the situation you are in and see if they would make a presentation on your behalf to the HA.

Is it because the property is under-occupied with just you there or are the other adult children present? Could you negotiate down-sizing to smaller property?

I'm not knowledgeable about secure (social housing) tenancies and I'm surprised that one person can terminate it without permission from the other (you can in private tenancies though). Speak to Shelter - they may have a drop in office in your local area.

blckbrd

Horrible situation to be in OP - sympathies. Came across a few similar cases when I was an estate manager 20/25 years ago. Each remaining tenant was in a family-sized property that they would otherwise have been free to live in without interference as long as they kept to the conditions of tenancy and paid the rent.

While I understand RSL's wanting to 'recover' larger properties so they can be re-allocated, Ithink this practice is opportunistic and cynical. Some RSLs even encourage the out-going partner to serve an NTQ simply so they can 'grab back' the property.

RSL tenancy agreements generally do not have a clause prohibiting termination of a joint tenancy by 1 party. As long as the NTQ is valid, it's accepted. How long ago was the NTQ served and if has already expired, are you being asked to make payment for 'damages and trespass' rather than rent? The reason I ask this is that if the LL is seeking rent from you after expiry, there is recognition of a tenancy which may prevent eviction - I'm sure your legal advisers will pick this up.

You're right, any challenge is cutting edge law - even human rights violation is insuffient defence. I'll keep 'em crossed for you as it only takes 1 case to set a precedent. Good luck.

cashino

Thank you all for your interest and help.
To answer some of your queries.... I am not being charged rent but am paying 'rent liability', which is about £10/week more than the rent.
The only reason I can think of for WHG forcing the issue, is that, in their eyes the property is under occupied. However , I have found another WHG tennant who under similar circumstances, remained in her property.
The Hammersmith/Monk case I believe goes to court in april 2010.
Regards

squinty

I'm sorry, but there is very little chance of you being able to remain in the property.

I am assuming the tenancy you held was a secure tenancy, and this was held jointly with your wife. It is not possible to assign a secure tenancy (1985 Housing Act) , so you wife was unable to remove her name from the tenancy. The only option was to end the tenancy which has had the effect of ending the tenancy on behalf of all joint tenants.

This is difficult to get your head around, but in effect the law regards a joint tenancy as a single entity - anything done, or any obligation owed by one part of the tenant afects all the tenants.

It sounds you are being charged mesne profit - this is for use an occupation of the property. The RSL will make this distinction as if you are paying rent, and they accept rent payments, there may be an argument that they have created a new tenancy.

It is very unlikley that you will be allowed to stay. You are no longer the tenant of the property, and the only way the RSL can relet that property is through its allocations scheme. It is not going to to allocate a family property to a single man.

Sorry to be harsh, but you have only very limited options here. I''m not sure a visit to a councilor or MP would be of any use. The RSL appear to be following a policy that is very typical of other social landlords - the reality is that across the country there is a shortage of socially rented property, and this is especially true of family accommodation.

I'm not sure if this is cutting edge law - it is common law and has been chellenged over the years, but all arguments - including the Human Rights one have been rejected.

You may want to contact the RSL and ask about the possibility of moving to smaller accommodation, that is more suited to your new family size. They a likley to be more sympathetic towards this now, especially if it avoids the need to go to court.

Another option is to understand if you could be accepted by the council as a homless person - this depends on if you are vulnerable. Take a look at the Shelter website for more information.