landlord and other tenant issues

toasterman

Hi everyone,
I recently moved out of a house and have a couple of issues.
I'll apologise immediately for the length of this, but there's a few details needed.

The house tenancy agreement stated that it is rented "wholly and severally" by the named tenants.
In the event of rooms being empty, the remaining tenants pay the rent for those rooms. One room is not in a fit livable state though (broken furniture through old age), so the landlord has not been asking us to pay the rent on that room since around Easter last year. He's also agreed in writing to pay a share of the council tax for that room.

In July 2009, when our yearly contract ceased, the new contract was not signed by the tenants or returned to the landlord. The landlord partially wrote in the names of three tenants (me included), but one has left, and two more have moved in, since he did that.
None of us have signed it ourselves.

Also, because people move in/out during a 12-month tenancy, the way it has always worked is that if you were moving out mid-term, you had to find someone to replace you in your room, or else continue paying rent on the property.
The landlords do not/have not looked for tenants in the last 4 years at least.
The tenancy agreement is not updated mid-term, so rarely reflects the correct people in the house.

This has all worked fine until December though.


In December 2009, one of the tenants (let's her call her Girl A) moved out of the property.
As has been done in the past, she found a replacement person for her room.
Normally a replacement person would be met by the remaining housemates, and they would have the final say.
However, Girl A was a selfish cow, and just accepted the first person who wanted the room, without asking anyone else's opinion. Let's call the new person moving in - Man B.

So we let Man B move in, then after a week or so, I tell him know how much the bills are, who is in charge of each, etc.
He said work had been a bit quiet and was a bit short of money, so I didn't force the issue too much.

Fast forward to late January. I'm moving out to live with my girlfriend.
I've advertised my room, and emailed the landlords with notice. I gave them about a week's notice, but found someone to move in a few days after I was planning to move out. New tenant C seems like a nice bloke, has met the other tenants, we've all agreed he is moving in, and all seems ok.
Fine.
Then the landlord replies to my email, and tells me he wants a face-to-face meeting with me at the start of February before I go. At this meeting, I was expecting to have to advise him on the state of some work that still needed doing in the house (I have been letting builders, plumbers, etc in - and updating the landlord on progress), but he actually tells me he's broke, is putting the house on the market, and hoping to sell it in the next 2 months.

He agrees verbally at the time that given the new person won't now want to move in, it's only fair he credits me back February's rent (which I'd already paid at the end of January, knowing it was my responsibility til I found a new person), and also my deposit (which is another month's rent).
So landlord has agreed to pay me two month's rent, back.
Had he not been selling, the new person would have paid their deposit to me, along with one month's rent. Either way, I get an amount equivalent to rent for two months, back.

While debating the house, I mention Man B.
Landlord claims to have never heard of Man B. In fact, nobody has been paying rent for that room since November.
After writing letters to all members of the house, including me, where he stated "[he] will need to re-imburse [me] for any outstanding rent/deposit, and will do so asap", he went very quiet.
I was unable to contact him by email, by landline, or mobile.

He has subsequently told me (mid February) he is withholding all monies he owes to anyone from the house, until Man B pays his rent from the period he was in there. He has mentioned this "wholly and severally" phrase several times. There's also some debate from the landlord's wife about whether I am owed one month's rent, as I didn't give a full 30 days notice (which is not mentioned in the tenancy agreement at all).

The landlord is claiming he is out of pocket of rent for one room from December, January and February, despite the fact that Man B didn't move in til mid-December. I can only guess Girl A didn't pay her December rent at the end of November, despite not advertising her room til the very end of November.


So my questions:
1. If the tenancy agreement was not signed by the tenants, is it legal?

2. Is there a standard legal notice period you have to give?

3. If Man B never signed the tenancy agreement (he didn't), is he liable for anything, even if he was living there?

4. If my landlord hasn't been receiving rent since the end of November, why didn't he do something about this before?
He claims he didn't know anyone was in that room, but DID know he wasn't receiving money.
So why wait until February to mention it? Had he told us in November, we'd have dealt with it then, kept an eye on it, got rid of the guy in the room, and the landlord wouldn't have been owed so much money. As a house, we'd have stumped up one month's rent, and replaced the problem tenant at the time.
Is it fair that we should be asked to pay for something that has been a problem since November, that we couldn't possibly have known about, when the landlord knew all the time?

5. My deposit is not being held in a deposit protection scheme. Can I take him to court for this? I've Googled it and it seems you can be fined several times the amount of deposit you've taken, for not having it in a scheme.

6. Being the "wholly and severally" thing, is he allowed to just keep the money I've paid him, because Man B is a useless lying **** who hasn't been paying his rent?

I'll give them that I didn't give a month's notice, but had they not been selling the house, a new person would have moved in and continued paying rent as I had been. They don't do any sort of check on the people moving in, so whether I gave them one day's notice, or six month's notice - the result would have been the same - me liable for the room until a new person moved in, or our yearly contract ended.

Man B has now moved out of the property, after leaving no forwarding address. I have subsequently found out he has been in prison, so see no reason why he would pay his back rent when there's not much I/other tenants/my landlord can do if he doesn't.

I think that the landlord is withholding monies owed (there is also other things he has agreed to pay, such as council tax for the room which we couldn't rent due to broken furniture) in order to try and pressure the other housemates, but given they're all working full time, it's only really me he's hurting, as I'm surviving on a £98 a week part-time job at the moment and struggling to stay above water.

I'll never live in a shared house with a joint tenancy agreement again, that's for sure.

princeofpounds

Wow that is long. And complicated, given that all of you and your landlord have been operating ridiculously informal tenancy agreements. This was a mess waiting to happen.

1) Yes and no. No-one needs to sign anything to create a tenancy. Their actions alone can imply a contract. However, that specific piece of paper, if unsigned, holds no weight. In theory you are still on your old, original tenancy, but it sounds like there may have been substitutions since then and technically those create new tenancies that supersede the old one, so figuring out which tenancy you are on and what the terms are is not straightforward and a matter of detail.

2. Yes and no. You don't need to give any notice to move out at the end of a fixed term. If you are on a statutory periodic tenancy you need to give 1 months to coincide with a rental period, the landlord 2. If you have agreed something else, then it is as per the contract, but as I said in point 1, I am totally unable to divine your exact contractual status.

3. If he paid rent, he created a tenancy. However, this could either be joining the pre-existing tenancy or creating a new standard tenancy based on the basic legislation along, depending on what he did, said and signed.

4. Not really his problem. If you are all jointly and severally liable then you are all reponsible individually for all the rent. Of course given the confused contract situation it is hard to tell if you are j&s liable.

5. Yes, assuming your tenancy was an AST and the tenancy was renewed since the introduction of the legislaion. What is your annual rent?

6. Possibly, see answer to Q4.

There is nothing wrong with joint and several tenancies as long as they aren't managed in such a chaotic fashion as this one and involve reasonably trustworthy people rather than strangers picked by strangers.

G_M

I agree with most of princeofpounds above especially the dubious nature of what tenancy agreement currently exists.

Since the original agreement lapsed and was not renewed (ie not signed), then the original agreement continues as a periodic tenancy. That would mean each of the original group of tenants remains 'wholly and severally' responsible for all the rent. However, if you are the only one left, then chances are it is you the LL will chase for ALL the rent.

However, as princeof (hey! get yourself a shorter user-name!)says, a new tenancy may have been created if new tenants have paid rent which LL has accepted : Question: does each tenant pay the LL directly, or do you/someone else collect it and pass it to the LL???

If a new tenancy exists, and IF each tenant pays direct - I would argue that the LL has separate tenancy agreements with each tenant : Question: how many rooms are there? Might this be a HMO (house of multiple occupation?)

Either way (original tenancy became periodic or new individual tenancies on periodic basis as no fixed term agreed), you should give a months notice ending on a rent day.

Can you be held responsible for everyone's rent? Depends if it is scenario 1 or 2 above. Sadly as it's such a complex legal position I suspect only a court could decide, but in your position I would argue the original tenancy has lapsed, not been re-signed, and that there are now multiple individual tenancies between the LL and each tenant - so you are not liable for Man B's rent.

Re deposit. Following from my 'assumption' above (that new tenancies were created when the original one lapsed) then the deposit should have been protected.
If the original tenancy continues (but now as a periodic) then it depends if it was originally created before or after 6th April 2007

toasterman

Thanks for your advice. It sounds like Man B wins, and can bask in his ability to con more people out of more money. !!!!!!.
Here's some more details:

I moved in prior to the 6th April 2007.

It's the same tenancy agreement he was using before 6th April 2007, but not the same names. Every year, he just changes the dates.
Our annual rent for the entire house is £16,800. The tenancy agreement says £1400 per month, but there are 5 rooms, and each person pays £285 a month. That makes more than £1400, as long as one of the rooms isn't unfit for living in (as is currently the case).
So technically he hasn't accepted any deposits before April 2007, as the person leaving collects their deposit from the person moving in.

There is a fixed term on the paper contract (which I know isn't very good. I showed it to a member of the CAB regarding something else a while ago) for a period of 365 days, but as people moved in/out during that, the landlord was happy to let one person move out, and another move in - so long as he kept getting his rent.

Regarding one payment or multiple payments...
The contract says "Rent: £1400 payable monthly. The first months rent and the daily apportioned payment up to the 1st standing order day to be paid on the signing hereof and thereafter by monthly payments as follows:
By standing order two working days before 21st July 2009 and monthly thereafter, to [landlord]".
However, each person has been paying £285 a month individually to the landlords.

It isn't a house of multiple occupation - all rooms share all facilities. There isn't separate locks on the internal doors, we didn't pay separate council tax etc.

Man B never paid any rent. Technically his final month's rent will be taken out of Girl A's deposit, held by the landlord.
The landlord has 4 deposits for 4 livable rooms. Due to people moving in/out, the landlord never accepts a deposit nor returns a deposit. Only case where this did happen was when the person moved out of the unlivable room, where the landlord paid him his deposit back.

Update: I was just writing this, when I had written confirmation by email from the landlord stating that "[he] will refund [my] deposit as agreed and a further two weeks rent,to split the difference".
That's the best news I've had all month.
Thanks for your help, and I'm making sure my next tenancy agreement is properly legit and kept up to date.

G_M

toasterman wrote: »

Thanks for your advice. It sounds like Man B wins, and can bask in his ability to con more people out of more money. !!!!!!.
Here's some more details:

I moved in prior to the 6th April 2007.

It's the same tenancy agreement he was using before 6th April 2007, but not the same names. Every year, he just changes the dates. So there HAVE been new contract(s) signed since April 2007? Then by law the deposit should have been protected. He's broken the law.
Our annual rent for the entire house is £16,800. The tenancy agreement says £1400 per month, but there are 5 rooms, and each person pays £285 a month. That makes more than £1400, as long as one of the rooms isn't unfit for living in (as is currently the case).
So technically he hasn't accepted any deposits before April 2007, as the person leaving collects their deposit from the person moving in.

There is a fixed term on the paper contract (which I know isn't very good. I showed it to a member of the CAB regarding something else a while ago) for a period of 365 days, but as people moved in/out during that, the landlord was happy to let one person move out, and another move in - so long as he kept getting his rent.

Regarding one payment or multiple payments...
The contract says "Rent: £1400 payable monthly. The first months rent and the daily apportioned payment up to the 1st standing order day to be paid on the signing hereof and thereafter by monthly payments as follows:
By standing order two working days before 21st July 2009 and monthly thereafter, to [landlord]".
However, each person has been paying £285 a month individually to the landlords. He has accepted rent directly from tenants not named on the agreements. This indicates to me that the written agreement(s) which have in any case expired, are no longer valid. He has created individual (verbal) tenancies with each new tenant, on a room by room basis.

It isn't a house of multiple occupation - all rooms share all facilities. There isn't separate locks on the internal doors, we didn't pay separate council tax etc.
If there are 4 (or is it 5?) 'separate households' sharing the property (ie paying rent separately) then it IS a HMO (see here). The fact that they share facilities is irrelevant. So the LL should have registered the house as a HMO with the Local Authority. He has broken the law again!
Man B never paid any rent. Technically his final month's rent will be taken out of Girl A's deposit, held by the landlord.
The landlord has 4 deposits for 4 livable rooms. Due to people moving in/out, the landlord never accepts a deposit nor returns a deposit. Only case where this did happen was when the person moved out of the unlivable room, where the landlord paid him his deposit back.

Update: I was just writing this, when I had written confirmation by email from the landlord stating that "[he] will refund [my] deposit as agreed and a further two weeks rent,to split the difference".
That's the best news I've had all month.
Thanks for your help, and I'm making sure my next tenancy agreement is properly legit and kept up to date.

Great news. So pleased for you. Take the money and run!

princeofpounds

(hey! get yourself a shorter user-name!)

Try PoP

What G_M has said is most likely to be right. Only a court can have the final say, but I would follow the same line of logic.