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

jjlandlord

Daneel wrote: »

I thought this was cleared up on the last page?

Really?
Let's see:

Daneel wrote: »

The LA has said that because I'm staying on, it's not new

Daneel wrote: »

The LA has quite explicitly said exactly the opposite

Not too cleared up...

Daneel wrote: »

that's why no inventory check is being carried out, they are not returning deposits and taking new ones, etc.

Inventory and refund of deposit should occur as it is a new tenancy. The 'tenant' is changing isn't he?


As previously said, the agent is incompetent. Let him and the landlord do their job and sort things out.

Daneel

jjlandlord wrote: »

Really?
Let's see:

Not too cleared up...

When I said the LA has stated the opposite, I quoted text saying this problem was up the the LA to resolve, and they have said it's up to us to resolve.

Daneel

jjlandlord wrote: »

Inventory and refund of deposit should occur as it is a new tenancy. The 'tenant' is changing isn't he?


As previously said, the agent is incompetent. Let him and the landlord do their job and sort things out.

The LA has said that no, because I am an original tenant, despite the fact that two new tenants are comig in, it's an extention. Is that statement flat out wrong?

When you say let the agent and landlord sort it out, what can they actually do?

jjlandlord

Daneel wrote: »

The LA has said that no, because I am an original tenant, despite the fact that two new tenants are comig in, it's an extention. Is that statement flat out wrong?

See posts #25 and #32: Yes it is flat out wrong. The tenant is different because the tenant is jointly all the joint tenants: If a single joint tenant changes the 'tenant' changes.

DVardysShadow

jjlandlord wrote: »

See posts #25 and #32: Yes it is flat out wrong. The tenant is different because the tenant is jointly all the joint tenants: If a single joint tenant changes the 'tenant' changes.

I agree with this. It goes along with the idea of the Joint and Several tenant being an adhoc corporation. There is no provision to change the members of that adhoc corporation - it is defined by the tenancy agreement itself. Now with a real corporation, the corporation itself can change its members if it has a tenancy. But the members cannot be changed for the protection of Landlords against the tenants being changed under their feet. Thsi is despite the Letting Agent having its oar in and trying to move things in that direction.

Daneel

Many thanks for all your help guys.

It seems the smoothest path to take is to see what happens with S. If he leaves, I'll leave things as they are. If not, I'll point out what you have told me about the contract not being an extension, and that deposits should be returned from the LA and new ones taken. Hopefully that will make them get off the sidelines.

G_M

As you said in post 10:

'The Tenant' in the original contract is Daneel + L + S

'The Tenant' in the new contract is Daneel + K + J

The current occupants are Daneel + S + K

However the original 'Tenant' (Daneel + L + S) did not vacate at the end of the fixed term (Daneel and S are still there), so the tenancy continues as a Periodic. There are 2 options.

One of the Tenants (ie you Daneel) now gives Notice. This will need to be a month, covering a full tenancy period, (so it could be 6 or 7 weeks in reality). The Periodic Tenancy then ends and S can be evicted and a new Tenancy created.

However a far better solution is to convince/bribe S to leave. If the 3 of you chip in to return his deposit, even pay him an additional small bribe to persuade him..? then you get over the issue and can move on. New tenancy. New names. New deposit registration. New life.