Joint tenancy has ended but one person refuses to leave

Lord_Baltimore

jjlandlord wrote: »

As advised in post #3.

Blunt but fair .

G_M

Since the original tenancy did not end on the date the fixed term expired, there is now a Statutory Periodic Tenancy, in joint names.

A SPT runs monthly (assuming rent is monthly) and can only end in line with those monthly periods - so make sure your notice is sufficient ie not a calender month! See the link below.

Although a SPT an be ended by either of the joint tenants, it would be politic to make sure the other joint tenant knows you are serving notice, since it will affect them.

Note Shelter is wrong - you will be liable for rent etc up till the tenancy ends (ie the date your notice expires) not "the date of receipt" (unless the LL agrees of course.

Ending/Renewing an AST (what happens when the Fixed Term ends?)(What is a Periodic Tenancy?)(How can a LL remove a tenant?)(How can a tenant end a tenancy?)

bris

thesaint wrote: »

If you indeed gave proper notice, the tenancy ended at expiry of the notice.

The landlord then had the option to go to court with your notice to remove the person in the property.

You are not liable for rent past the date your notice expired.
You need to ensure the landlord has your address(retain proof), as he may get a court judgement against you both in your abscence.

If you receive a claim from the court, you can defend the Sec 21 for the reasons above.

Yes he is still jointly liable, even though one party gave notice this didn't end liability because the property wasn't vacated. The tenancy doesn't end if the tenants don't leave even just one of them.

sinizterguy

breaking_free wrote: »

Shelter has assured me that once this notice is received I will only be liable for costs/rent arrears up the date of receipt. Not the best result, but at least I have an definitive answer. Thanks to everyone who replied and I hope this thread might assist others in a similar position.

Sounds like BS. Logically speaking.

Legally, they may be right. And you will leave the LL up the creek without a paddle.

Either way, good luck to you.

Cissi

jjlandlord wrote: »

As advised in post #3.

Yes but some of us were basing our replies on what OP had actually claimed (and which now turns out not to be true):

breaking_free wrote: »

I gave the proper one month's notice in writing to end a joint tenancy at the end of its fixed term, which the landlord accepted.

breaking_free wrote: »

I gave the proper notice to end the fixed term tenancy, which was accepted by the landlord.

In any case, even if OP serves correct notice, if ex still refuses to leave then the JOINT tenants would be considered to be overstaying and the LL can charge double rent. I don't see how the OP would no longer be liable?

rpc

breaking_free wrote: »

The joint tenancy has ended. My ex-partner is effectively squatting.

No they aren't. They may be holding over but are not squatting.

One interpretation (see below) is that it doesn't matter whether it is one of you or both of you. "The tenant" (being breaking_free, X-breaking_free and all your stuff) has not left the property.

How does this:

I gave the proper one month's notice in writing to end a joint tenancy at the end of its fixed term,

Compare with this:

I have not served a valid "Notice to Quit".

You might be interested to know that Tessa Shepardson disagrees with the advice Shelter have given (and Shelter's own page on the issue says "ending joint tenancies can be complicated" whereas their advice to you seems rather simple).

She says

http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2011/04/11/tenants-legal-help-five-things-about-joint-tenants/ wrote:

So if Belinda wants to end her liability and serves a notice to quit, this will work if ALL the tenants then leave (assuming the notice was properly drafted and was served after the fixed term had ended). However if Ann, Caroline and Doreen all stay on, then the landlord will still be entitled to his rent, as he has not got vacant possession of his property. Unlike the Local Authority in the example above, he probably won’t want to to go to court to evict anyone.
My understanding is that Belinda will remain liable for the rent in this situation along with the others, until such time as they all move out or a new tenancy agreement is signed (without Belinda). However if anyone has any legal authority to the contrary, please leave a comment.

A debate then carries on in the comments which suggests that as long as the notice-giver has left, any rent payments after the end of the tenancy (governed by the NTQ) create a new tenancy for anyone still resident.

The big question I would be asking is whether a magistrate would get this right (whatever right may be). Barristers and high court judges could probably get to the bottom of it, but a lay magistrate...

rpc

Cissi wrote: »

LL can charge double rent

Not any more. Distress of Rent Act 1737 was repealed by Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (effective some time last year).

jjlandlord

If a valid notice to quit is served (which implies that the tenancy is periodic) there is no question that the tenancy ends on expiry.

Consequently the (ex-)landlord is not entitled to any rent afterwards. However he is entitled to be compensated if the ex-tenant remains in occupation through "mesne profits" equal to the daily rate of the previous tenancy.

It is doubtful that the joint-tenants who have vacated would be liable for that, or for double rent.

rpc wrote: »

Not any more. Distress of Rent Act 1737 was repealed by Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (effective some time last year).

It didn't repeal the provision re. double rent.

rpc

jjlandlord wrote: »

It didn't repeal the provision re. double rent.

Blummin 'eck - you are right. It repeals every single paragraph of the act, except the double rent one. Masters of obfuscation...