Original signers of tenancy contract replaced but landlord not told

someanonbloke

Hi, I've been living in a rented property for a number of years.

Basically, what's happened is that there were 3 names put on the original contract - one of which is mine. All 3 parties having given deposits.

Subsequently, the other two names have vacated the property and been replaced by people I've found with deposits changing hands accordingly but instead, I've kept hold of the deposits. In effect, I've been subletting.

So, what's happened is that I've taken on the responsibility of finding new tenants. I didn't inform the landlord of this because I thought it would just create hassle and that it wasn't important because the landlord was still receiving the rent.

The main problem is that finding suitable tenants is never easy; someone gives a month's notice and I have have to find a suitable replacement within a month. This happens every 6-9 months and causes me considerable hassle and stress, and then I have to deal with the mess if the person turns out to be a problem.

So, what I want is to be the only person named on the contract, which makes me responsible for finding other occupants, but with the proviso that if I can't find suitable replacements in time for the following month, then the landlord can give me some leeway with regard to paying all the rent on the property for the month.

The other option is to absolve myself of all responsibility for the other rooms in the property and just pay my own share of the rent to the landlord and leave the rest to her. This is not desirable though as it means having no control over who moves in.

Also, with regard to the deposit held by the landlord, what happens to that in light of the fact that I'm holding the deposits from the other tenants. Let's suppose I leave and so do the other tenants: I return their deposits to them but the landlord holds the deposit for 3 people. Is the full deposit returned to me? I'm confused here.

thesaint

What date did the tenancy start, and is the deposit held in a scheme?

someanonbloke

Tenancy started a few years ago. No, deposit not held in a scheme. Landlord has it.

thesaint

"A few years ago" is not a date.

pmlindyloo

This is a complete and utter mess.

Unless the original occupants gave the correct notice to the landlord then effectively they are still responsible for the rent.

Since they have left and it is a joint tenancy agreement then the landlord can chase them for the rent and in the absence of finding them then you will be responsible for the whole of the rent.

Besides which you have effectively (as you say) been subletting which is likely to be in breach of the original agreement.

When the original tenants left did the new tenants pay their deposit to them? Why would you be holding the deposits? Weren't the original tenants given their deposits back?

It is a statutory requirement that the landlord protects deposits in a Deposit Protection Scheme. Have you checked to see if he/she has? Look at the Shelter website to see how to do this.

Others may be along to give you more information but my 'take' on this is to inform your LL what you have been doing and see if he/she will create a new tenancy agreement with the current 'tenants' named on it. He/she may just give you notice to quit.

I hope you can sort this out. The only 'leverage' (so to speak) you have is that your LL should have protected your deposit.

Wait for others to post to see if they disagree with me or have any further useful information.

thesaint

pmlindyloo wrote: »

It is a statutory requirement that the landlord protects deposits in a Deposit Protection Scheme. Have you checked to see if he/she has?

There has not been enough information given to state that this is the case here.

pmlindyloo

thesaint wrote: »

There has not been enough information given to state that this is the case here.

Sorry, don't understand your comment

The OP states that the landlord holds the original deposit.

Or are you talking about the length of the tenancy?



OP

Are the new 'tenants' paying rent dierectly to the landlord?

Yorkie1

thesaint wrote: »

There has not been enough information given to state that this is the case here.

Had you overlooked the fact that all LLs had to protect deposits under the Localism Act, irrespective of date of the tenancy?

Edit to say I am wrong!

tbs624

My understanding is that where the original FT tenancy predates the original introduction of the deposit regs, ie 6 April 2007, and there has been no further FT agreement signed up to, then a deposit from that period will not need to be registered.

Happy to be corrected if others know different

G_M

tbs624 wrote: »

My understanding is that where the original FT tenancy predates the original introduction of the deposit regs, ie 6 April 2007, and there has been no further FT agreement signed up to, then a deposit from that period will not need to be registered.

Happy to be corrected if others know different

Correct.

I too made the mistake recently of stating that ALL depsoits now have to be registered. I was corrected by another poster, checked the facts myself, and confirmed that pre-2007 deposits donot need registering providing the original tenancy continues.

So the OP needs to confirm whether " a number of years" is pre-2007.

what I want is to be the only person named on the contract, which makes me responsible for finding other occupants, but with the proviso that if I can't find suitable replacements in time for the following month, then the landlord can give me some leeway

Wow! You really want your cake and eat it!

Either
1) you become sole tenant, with permission to sublet, in which case
a) you can choose your sub-tenants but
b) you are responsible for the full rent OR

2) you are a joint tenant so
a) you share full responsibility for the rent with other joint tenants and
b) each time the occupants change a new joint tenancy is created OR

3) each occupant has their own individual tenancy in which case
a) you are only responsible for your own rent but
b) have no say in who else lives there

My advice to you is to formalise your arrangement with the landlord. Decide which of the options above you prefer, speak to your LL, and (assuming he agrees) get a new tenancy set up to reflect the preferred scenario.

edit: returning to the deposit issue:

been replaced by people I've found with deposits changing hands accordingly but instead, I've kept hold of the deposits. In effect, I've been subletting.

YOU are breaking the law. If you sublet (as you are), you are the landlord to the sub-tenants. If they give you a deposit (which they have) then you must register it. Failure to do so makes you liable to the penalty....

PasturesNew

When the first people left and were replaced.... and the new people came and gave you a deposit ... how come you've got deposit money, didn't the original people want their deposits back when they left?