Jointly and severally liable - forever??

aoifeclarke84

Hi

Myself and my housemate served appropriately-timed notice on our periodic tenancy agreement, the agency accepted and I moved out by the correct date. My housemate spoke seperately to the landlord and agreed she would like to stay on and would sign a new contract with someone else.

The new contract has not yet been concluded and rent was paid late, which resulted in the agency contacting me. When I said that it's not my concern they maintained that it is and are adamant that despite their accepting the termination, that my joint and several liability can be reinstated without my knowledge. As the landlord and my old flatmate contacted the agency and said they'd rather do a change of occupancy, the agency believes that they can override our earlier notice, despite me not being party to this request, and on which I've noted my objections.

Surely this cant be the case - if so, wouldnt that mean that I could technically be liable for an indefinite period?

All advice most welcome, thanks. :beer:

theartfullodger

Does the acknowledgement you received from the agency, agency acting for the landlord, specifically state they accept your notice ??

If so I think agent & LL can be told to f*** off, but it would only eventually get sorted in the courts if LL chooses to pursue it..

N79

The tenant can issue notice, the tenant can withdraw the notice. The law only recognizes one tenant, which can comprise many people. Agree with artful that if there is no negotiated settlement to end the tenancy then only a court can sort this out, if the LL takes it that far.

theartfullodger

For the avoidance of doubt, if only one joint tenant serves a valid notice2quit, this (if valid) ends the tenancy for all tenants... established by House of Lords .. see cases...

Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v Monk, 1992

Service of NTQ by one joint tenant terminates tenancy

The defendant had been one of two joint tenants. Without his knowledge, the other tenant gave notice to quit to the council to terminate the tenancy. The defendant did not leave and the council sought possession.

The House of Lords, upholding a series of Court of Appeal decisions,
including Greenwich LBC v McGrady (F4.8), held that, in the absence of any express term of tenancy to the contrary, one joint tenant can unilaterally terminate a periodic joint tenancy by giving proper notice to quit. Lord Browne-Wilkinson doubted whether the tenant who gave the notice to quit was in breach of trust towards the other joint tenant, but even if she was, that did not make the notice to quit a nullity. Accordingly, possession was granted.


Harrow LBC v Johnstone, 1997

NTQ by one joint tenant terminated the tenancy despite a court order restraining that tenant from excluding the other tenant from the premises

So, as long as your original notice was valid (and you can prove you served it), particularly if you have a reply from LL or LL's agent accepting it, tenancy ends.

Cheers!

Artful

aoifeclarke84

Are you sure though? I see no legal precedent that states a tenant can revoke notice, and think it strange that someone could be left with such limitless liability.

Does that mean for example that two debtors to a mortgage could also terminate the agreement, then one could go behind the other's back and re-establish it, making the unaware party liable for the payments?

aoifeclarke84

Thanks Artful, just as I suspected. We did both agree to ending the contract in this instance, which is the reason why its annoying me even more!

theartfullodger

aoifeclarke84 wrote: »

Does that mean for example that two debtors to a mortgage could also terminate the agreement, then one could go behind the other's back and re-establish it, making the unaware party liable for the payments?

Two points here...

a) Any one tenant can end a joint tenancy....
b) However, where any person jointly & severally is liable for some debt, they remain liable.


The issue here seems to be we have both issues...
- LL says tenancy continues (I think it doesn't..)
- LL says OP still owes rent (well, only up to when tenancy ended in my view, if any rent owing)