would you share the deposit?

ceh209

pingu2209 wrote: »

If her share of the deposit is greater than the extra £750 in rent you and your remaining tenant paid, I would pay her back the amount less the £750. So if her share is worth £800 - give her £50 back.

Do it face to face and explain your reasons.

I'd certainly do that, however maybe I didn't quite explain clearly - it's the other way round. Her share of the deposit is approx £400, that's why I think just keeping that would be a good compromise for her.

princeofpounds

This is a very simple case. It is only between you tenants as you had a joint contract and the LL has fulfilled their obligations. The absent tenant may be able to use the contract term requiring equal distribution to sue the LL (silly LL for putting that in) and she cannot have it both ways - either she is a tenant and can try to use that clause (but is liable for the rent she didn't pay to you) or she isn't a tenant and not liable for the rent (but has no right to use that clause). But that is not your concern.

A court will look at both your paperwork and at your actions (which can imply an intent) in determining the contractual position between the three of you.

My understanding from what you have written is that the absent tenant signed up to a renewed tenancy when you joined the house, not realising that committed her to a 6 month tenancy and assuming that she could leave on the terms of the old one. You were then paying equal shares until she left.

A court would simply say to her - tough, you made a mistake and you are bound by the contract you signed. You also established an intention to pay equal shares by doing exactly that until you decided to renege on the contract. So there will be a presumed intention to have contractually equal shares between the joint tenants in the absence of any written contract, and the court will award you the rent she should have paid.

The rest of you should not suffer because she did not read her contract.

The only way she deserves the money back is if you actively deceived her about the new contract, and presumably the contract itself is pretty clear so claiming deception is pretty hard!

You are not expected to have mitigated your loss by finding a replacement tenant as that is presumably not permissible under the contract you signed with the LL.

Gorgeous_George

The deposit is to protect the landlord against loss and not the co-tenants. I feel an agreed compromise is the best way forward for all involved.

I'd save myself the embarrassment of going to court. Any counter-claim is a totally separate matter and also unlikely to succeed.

GG