Joint Tenancy’s – How to end?

Planner

DVardysShadow wrote: »

This is barmy. YOU are cherry picking. You have quoted the very text which you are totally blind to. So I have enlarged it for you. I think the enlarged bit is the key to your misunderstanding

We are not talking about serving notice ON the date the fixed term ends, we are talking about serving notice FOR the date the fixed term ends. The date ON which you serve it can be before the end of the fixed term as long as it is not FOR a date in the fixed term.

I would agree that the transition from fixed to periodic is immediate - but to call it seamless is not helpful. The effect of notice correctly served in the fixed period is that the transition is from fixed to terminated - the periodic does not then arise.

Again dont cherry pick, read it all. If a fixed term tenancy comes to an end and the tenant is still in occupation (tenant = A or B or just A or just then a periodic tenancy arises for the tenant (tenant being A & . As the periodic has arisen any notice served on or before to end the tenancy at any point during the tenancy or at the end of it is invalid. If it was valid then the remaining tenant could have a periodic tenany as the law says they can.

If 'immediatley' doesnt mean 'seamless' what would you say it means?

If we go with your view what tenancy does the remaining tenant have? - a new single fixed term? A new single periodic? What are the terms of it? Whats the rent? - Seems very ambigious.

DVardysShadow

Planner wrote: »

Again dont cherry pick, read it all. If a fixed term tenancy comes to an end and the tenant is still in occupation (tenant = A or B or just A or just then a periodic tenancy arises for the tenant (tenant being A & . As the periodic has arisen any notice served on or before to end the tenancy at any point during the tenancy or at the end of it is invalid. If it was valid then the remaining tenant could have a periodic tenany as the law says they can.

If 'immediatley' doesnt mean 'seamless' what would you say it means?

If we go with your view what tenancy does the remaining tenant have? - a new single fixed term? A new single periodic? What are the terms of it? Whats the rent? - Seems very ambigious.

If a tenant A from A+B can give notice and terminate the tenancy [and you have agreed they can terminate at one rental period after going periodic], then the remaining tenant [notice having been given by another tenant] is in exactly the same position if notice was given for the end of the fixed term as for notice being given one rental period after going periodic.

Planner

DVardysShadow wrote: »

If a tenant A from A+B can give notice and terminate the tenancy [and you have agreed they can terminate at one rental period after going periodic], then the remaining tenant [notice having been given by another tenant] is in exactly the same position if notice was given for the end of the fixed term as for notice being given one rental period after going periodic.

In my scenario - notice after 1 month periodic, the periodic tenancy would, for that one month be under the same terms and condition as the fixed term. Housing Act 1988 confirms this. I have never commented what would happen after the first month of the periodic should one tenant leave.

This cant be the case in your scenario as;

- A tenant leaving has already changed the terms of the previous fixed term; and
- A periodic tenancy can only be granted to the tenant (so in a joint tenancy A & who was the tenant in the fixed term, so a periodic cant arise.

So my question remains - If we go with your view what tenancy does the remaining tenant have? - a new single fixed term? A new single periodic? What are the terms of it? Whats the rent? - Seems very ambigious.

DVardysShadow

Planner wrote: »

In my scenario - notice after 1 month periodic, the periodic tenancy would, for that one month be under the same terms and condition as the fixed term. Housing Act 1988 confirms this. I have never commented what would happen after the first month of the periodic should one tenant leave.

This cant be the case in your scenario as;

- A tenant leaving has already changed the terms of the previous fixed term; and
- A periodic tenancy can only be granted to the tenant (so in a joint tenancy A & who was the tenant in the fixed term, so a periodic cant arise.

So my question remains - If we go with your view what tenancy does the remaining tenant have? - a new single fixed term? A new single periodic? What are the terms of it? Whats the rent? - Seems very ambigious.

If tenant A of A+B gives notice in the fixed term to come into effect at the end of the term, the have not changed the fixed term.

Presumably [and it is not worth an argument] the remaining tenant B becomes an evictable squatter. Regardless of whether A gave notice to end at the end of the fixed period or to end at the end of a rental period in the periodic tenancy. But the key point is that there is no difference that I can see.

Planner

DVardysShadow wrote: »

If tenant A of A+B gives notice in the fixed term to come into effect at the end of the term, the have not changed the fixed term.

Presumably [and it is not worth an argument] the remaining tenant B becomes an evictable squatter. You are not serious? Cant you honestly not see how unfair and ludicrious this would be for poor remaing tenant B? Not only has he been stripped of his right to a periodic tenancy, hes also now a squatter in his own home! Regardless of whether A gave notice to end at the end of the fixed period or to end at the end of a rental period in the periodic tenancy. But the key point is that there is no difference that I can see.

The difference is under my scenario the Housing Act tells us what will happen if A has to wait until month 7 or 13 to leave - a periodic tenancy will arise.

In your scenario it doesnt tell us what will happen - if it does indeed say A can leave why doesnt it also tell us what happens to B?

DVardysShadow

Planner wrote: »

You are not serious? Cant you honestly not see how unfair and ludicrious this would be for poor remaing tenant B? Not only has he been stripped of his right to a periodic tenancy, hes also now a squatter in his own home!

?????

Under Joint and Several, if A gives notice, the tenancy is at an end. Even on your view of things, A can give notice of quitting after 1 period of the periodic tenancy. So much for B's right to a periodic tenancy. Is B better off with a right to 1 rental period?

If B can cut a deal with the LL, then that is between LL and B.
A good way of looking at a Joint and Several agreement would be that the joint and several members effectively form an ad-hoc corporation for the duration of an agreement. Once one tenant gives notice to quite a joint and several tenancy, notice to dissolve the ad-hoc corporation is given. All the 1988 act stuff is saying is that the ad-hoc corporation cannot be dissolved during the assured period.

So 'poor B' never had a right to a periodic tenancy. Only the ad-hoc corporation of A+B had that right. A has exercised his right to dissolve the joint tenancy. The body which held any right to the periodic tenancy is no more.

And if the tenancy is over, it is no longer his home.


Alternatively, if B does have the right to a periodic tenancy alone after 1 rental period of periodic tenancy with A+B remaining joint and several for that rental period, then I can only see that B would ahve that same right if A quit at the exact end of the Assured term.

Planner

DVardysShadow wrote: »

?????

Under Joint and Several, if A gives notice, the tenancy is at an end. Even on your view of things, A can give notice of quitting after 1 period of the periodic tenancy. So much for B's right to a periodic tenancy. Is B better off with a right to 1 rental period? Better Off - In the long term probably not - I created this thread for the leagal view though - So if better off includes ''alloed their rights", then yes they are better off.

If B can cut a deal with the LL, then that is between LL and B.
A good way of looking at a Joint and Several agreement would be that the joint and several members effectively form an ad-hoc corporation for the duration of an agreement. Once one tenant gives notice to quite a joint and several tenancy, notice to dissolve the ad-hoc corporation is given. All the 1988 act stuff is saying is that the ad-hoc corporation cannot be dissolved during the assured period. Any fool (Not you!) can see that arrangements can be made, but whats the legal position?

So 'poor B' never had a right to a periodic tenancy. Point of disagreement Only the ad-hoc corporation of A+B had that right Legal view please. A has exercised his right to dissolve the joint tenancy Point of disagreement. The body which held any right to the periodic tenancy is no more Legal view please .

And if the tenancy is over, it is no longer his home.

Alternatively, if B does have the right to a periodic tenancy alone after 1 rental period of periodic tenancy with A+B remaining joint and several for that rental period He doesnt, then I can only see that B would ahve that same right if A quit at the exact end of the Assured term. So he doesnt

I suspect we are reaching a natural conclusion here? Thought provoking stuff though. Nice to discuss with someone whos posts dont quickly degenerate into hysteria and name calling.

I will have a trawl for caselaw. Going to have to depart for Bigbrother on +1 soon (sad I know). Wonder what type of tenancy they have in the BB House?