Deposit

Guest101

LUSK wrote: »

So, if I am reading you correctly, then Tenant B is also liable for rent and damages? If correct, that is harsh!

With the letting agent being fully aware that Tenant B moved out in or around month four, should the LA not have drawn up a new contract to protect Tenant B?

No they shouldn't.

It's your agent, so unless u told them to, and the tenants agreed.

Guest101

LUSK wrote: »

Just something else to muddy the water, Tenant A is in the process of applying for an IVA. In this situation does this mean that it is only Tenant A which I can not touch via the courts?

You're suggesting you might take tenant B to court?

I think that's not on personally.

LUSK

Thanks for the response but are you suggesting that I ought to take them all to court?

Guest101

LUSK wrote: »

Thanks for the response but are you suggesting that I ought to take them all to court?

Not trying to be harsh:

No I think you need to learn a valuable lesson. It's hardly tenant Bs fault that you let 10k in arrears mount up. That over a year in rent.

If you can take tenant A to court, do so, but doubt you'll get paid

But tenant B doesn't sound like they deserve this. Despite you being able to do so. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. - though those are my morals so others may disagree.

LUSK

Guest101 wrote: »

Not trying to be harsh:

No I think you need to learn a valuable lesson. It's hardly tenant Bs fault that you let 10k in arrears mount up. That over a year in rent.

If you can take tenant A to court, do so, but doubt you'll get paid

But tenant B doesn't sound like they deserve this. Despite you being able to do so. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. - though those are my morals so others may disagree.

I am afraid that I completely agree with your comments.

It's a bit of a sorry state of affairs when you try to help somebody out (tenant A) and get dumped upon. Sad to to say but the moral is don't help!!

G_M

I disagree.

Tenant B took out a tenancy. (S)he signed a binding contract, certainly for 6 months, and thereafter should have ensured that his liability ended if he wished to escape the legal consequences of that contract.

Although he can simply walk away from the poperty (as seems to have happened) he cannot walk away from the contract.

Since the contract continued after the 6 months he continues to be liable. OP should sue both jointly, especially as it now seems that tenant A is highly unlikely to pay up whatever the courts ruling.

It is for exactly this reason that when two people wish to move in to a property, sensible landlords insist both are jointly liable, and vet both tenants.

As for whether the agent should have created a new tenancy after 4 months when tenant B walked:

IF both tenants had requested this (ie Tenant B said I want out and tenant A said I wish to stay alone), then the agent should have asked the landlord what he wished to do. It was certainly not for the agent to arrange this without reference to the LL, nor was it for the agent even to instigate this - though he should perhaps have let the LL know there was a potential problem brewing.

A sensible LL, at that point, would first re-vet tenant A to see if he/she was a safe bet on his/her own (is salary suficient? is salary secure? is tenant trustworthy? etc). If satisfied, LL would instruct agent to draw up a new contract in tenant A's sole name, probably at tenant A/B's cost.

But if any doubt, why would the LL agree to lose the security of Tenant B remaining on the tenancy? Given that the LL knows tenant B has walked out, a S21 served at the 4 month point (in lieu of new tenancy) would have ended the tenancy after 6 months and avoided these arrears.