House mate changing his mind about moving out - contractual problems - help!

Daneel

I potentially have a problem in my current house share, and am confused by what the LA is telling me.

There are three of us on the current fixed term, 2 year contract (no clauses about the contract continuing to run beyond the end date) which ends in a few days. I have negotiated a further 1 year with the landlord, through the LA, for which I will be staying on, and the the other two people will be leaving, to be replaced with two new people. We, the three new tenants, have signed the new contract, which the LA is classifying as an extension, because I am one of the existing tenants. One of my old house mates has already moved out, replaced by a new house mate, and the other original tenant, is threatening not to leave.

The LA tells me that if the person threatening not to leave stays on, the new contract will have to be set aside, and things will continue under the old one. That would mean my old house mate who has already moved out would be liable for the rent, the person currently in her room would have no liability at all, and the person who was supposed to move in for the start of the new contract has nowhere to live.

I do not understand two things:

1. How a fixed term contract with no provisions about rolling over following the end of the term, can continue to be in force beyond the term

2. How one person staying on beyond the term of the contract, can leave those who have already moved out liable (actually I can understand this under the jointly and severally liable clause, but it still seems ridiculous), and invalidate a signed contract

The LA has said the issue is to be resolved between us, and they won't get involved.

Can anyone tell me if this is correct, and what if anything I can do if the problematic house mate decides not to move out?

Daneel

Anyone? I guess I could try my local CAB?

dancingfairy

Hi - I'm a bit confused to be honest. Why would the 3 of you that are currently there sign a new contract when 2 of them are moving out? This seems very odd and makes things uneccessarily complicated as far as I can see. Why not just get the 3 new people (you and the two new people) to sign a new contract? The only person/people I can see this suiting is the Letting agent and the landlord (well sort of). I can only assume that the letting agent is charging a fee for renewal of contract and then another one to change the names properly? Seems very odd. It also makes getting the deposit back awkward. What should happen is that when the first contract ends everybody gets their third back and then the new tenants each stump up a third for the new tenancy - it shouldn't be too complicated.
I'm sorry I don't know the answer to your questions though.
df

Emmzi

1. offer him cash to go or
2. start a new contract with you, him and the one new person

dancingfairy

Oh - normally unless ended in the correct manner then a tenancy will continue on a month by month basis - it's in law. It just does. I'm not sure whether one person leaving means the end of the tenancy or whether all 3 parties have to give notice to end the original contract- sorry. I'm sure one of the experts will be along later.
df

anselld

Messy!
One T giving notice in a joint tenancy is sufficient to terminate the contract, hence the new contract cannot be an extension. Apart from anything else some of the parties to the contract have changed.

Not sure where that leaves the two remaining though as seemingly neither contract is valid!

G_M

Daneel wrote: »

I do not understand two things:

1. How a fixed term contract with no provisions about rolling over following the end of the term, can continue to be in force beyond the term

2. How one person staying on beyond the term of the contract, can leave those who have already moved out liable (actually I can understand this under the jointly and severally liable clause, but it still seems ridiculous), and invalidate a signed contract

The LA has said the issue is to be resolved between us, and they won't get involved.

1. Any Fixed Term contract automatically becomes a periodic tenancy when it expires if a) the 'tenant' (*) remains in occupation and b) the 'tenant' continues to pay rent and provided that c) the 'tenant' has not signed a new fixed term contract.
In this scenario 'tenant' = the person/persons who signed the original fixed term agreement, any one or all of them

The terms of the periodic tenancy created are exactly the same as the fixed term agreement other than the notice required to end it (one month by tenant, 2 months by landlord)

2) Since one of the original tenants is staying (and has not signed a new tenancy agreement) there is now a periodic tenancy in place of the old fixed terml tenancy - with the original 3 named people still being the 'tenant'.

The new tenancy agreement signed by the new people cannot come into force since they cannot take occupation. They could, of course, sue the landlord/agent for breach of contract since the landlord is unable to provide the property they have contracted together.

Emmzi's suggestion is the most pragmatic :
the 3 people remaining in occupation (OP, remaining original tenant and one new tenant) could sign a new contract which would end the ongoing periodic tenancy 'by mutual consent'.

Whether the 2nd 'new' tenant who has not yet moved in chose to sue the landlord/agent for breach of contract would be up to him (/her).
The

anselld

I don't think (2) is true. Any joint tenant can terminate individually if notice is correctly served.

G_M

anselld wrote: »

I don't think (2) is true. Any joint tenant can terminate individually if notice is correctly served.

Hmm. This has come up before and I forget....

On a contractual matter (eg activating a break clause) all joint tenants must agree/give notice.

On a periodic tenancy, any one of the joint tenants can give notice (I think...).

However here we have a Fixed Term expiring (or not) so the question of giving Notice does not arise. Either the tenants vacate on (or before) the last day and the tenancy ends, or the tenants (all of them) do not move out and the tenancy continues (on a periodic basis).

Buy I'm happy to be corrected here.

Daneel

Thanks for the replies. It seems that what the LA is telling me is right then, and the guy threatening to stay can mess things up for all of us with very little consequence.

Just to clarify. The tenants named on the current contract are:

Daneel
L (already moved out)
S (threatening to stay)

The new tenants will hopefully be (we have signed a new contract):

Daneel
K (already moved in to L's room)
J (hopefully to take S's room)

Unsurprisingly, I have no desire at all to live with S anymore, so me, S, and K signing a new contract is not going to happen.

I think S's actions are due to paranoia that he won't get his desposit back from J when he moves out. The LA has advised us that as this is a contract extention, we have to sort out the deposit amoung ourselves, and the deposit they are holding will stay where it is. There is no inventory check or other such procedures being conducted, and they are not charging a fee.

It seems we are at the mercy of S's whim, and I am not sure what I can do if he doesn't move out. I don't see how we can pay rent until S moves out because:

1. The rental amounts are different on the old and new contracts
2. The money I have ready to be paid over belongs to me, K and J, but if S decides to stay, it would be me, L and S who are liable for the rent

If I understand things correctly, if S decides to stay, L is liable for rent despite not living here, K is not liable for rent despite living here, J has nowhere to live, and S carries on regardless?

I will of course do my best to make sure S does move out, but if he decides not to, I have no idea how to proceed. I find the whole situation ridiculous.

Daneel

anselld wrote: »

Messy!
One T giving notice in a joint tenancy is sufficient to terminate the contract, hence the new contract cannot be an extension. Apart from anything else some of the parties to the contract have changed.

Not sure where that leaves the two remaining though as seemingly neither contract is valid!

S did give noitce (which he subsequently retracted, and has now made conditional depending on him getting his deposit back), as did L. But the LA is telling me that notice is pretty much irrelevant, and the only way the contract is terminated is if we have all vacated at the end of the tenancy. As I am staying on, the new contract is an extension of the old one.