Joint Tenancy - What rights

Uther

In a joint tenancy I know that if one tenant defaults, the other tenants are liable for their part of the rent.

but, should the LL just take it from the deposit of the remaining tenants, or does he have any obligation to try get the money from the defaulting tenant first.

Or, should the remaining tenants, lose the deposits and then try themselves to get it back from the defaulting tenant in court.

Thanks

BitterAndTwisted

In general people who are in situ are easier to chase for money than someone who has gone AWOL, so your landlord may expect the shortfall of the rent from you and your other co-tenants.

Aren't you a student Uther? Does this mean that each of you needed to provide a guarantor to secure your tenancy? If so, I suspect the LL will be looking to the defaulting tenant's guarantor for the monies. Have you contacted your Uni's student services people for advice?

princeofpounds

Wow it sounds like a pretty messy situation you are in what with this and the last thread. Thankfully this one is easier to answer.

Is this default why the LL doesn't want to return deposits?

If you are jointly and severally liable the LL can choose anyone and any method to recover money. You are all one entity for the purpose of the tenancy.

However, there is an implied agreement between tenants to pay equal shares (unless you have organised it differently). So you could potentially sue the bad tenant.

Even if there is no written contract between tenants that doesn't matter. Courts can use written and verbal evidence, but even actions can be interpreted as implying an intention to contract, so as long as there has been an established mechanism of sharing payment in place which was later broken you should be fine in demonstrating there was a contract between you all.

Uther

princeofpounds wrote: »

Is this default why the LL doesn't want to return deposits?

Yes, this is the reason, and I would probably accept losing the deposit, if it wasn't for the fact that the LL wants to give the Lead tenant the full deposit, just so they will sign to release the rest of the deposits from the deposit scheme to the LL.

The tenant that defaulted has not disappeared, the LL is just choosing the easiest option.

Also that tenant is not in the deposit scheme, although has paid a deposit, does this make any difference.?

princeofpounds

OK, that makes it all a bit more understandable.

From the LL's point of view he is in fact doing nothing wrong. He is taking part of the house deposit in settlement of this shortfall, and returning the rest. That's totally legitimate, it's not really his business what the lead tenant does after that.

Initially I thought it was just an outright bribe to the lead tenant to allow unjustified deductions.

You need to concentrate on the relationship between the tenants then. You have one problem with the defaulting tenant

Also that tenant is not in the deposit scheme, although has paid a deposit, does this make any difference.?

For you, probably not. When the old and new tenants swapped over, *precisely* what happened to the old and new deposits? Who paid what to whom?

Uther

The 2 tenants that moved out are still listed in the scheme, I believe they were paid the full deposits in cash.
The 2 new new tenants did pay deposits but were not entered onto the scheme. I'm sorry, I don't have more precise information than that.
Would it make a difference then who payed the deposit then and who to?