Help, landlord is threatening to sue over a subtenant overstaying

c88

There was a group of 5 of us renting a house in the UK . We signed a standard private agreement. The landlord gave us permission to sub let 2 rooms due to people moving out early.

The tenancy was coming to an end and the sub tenant was given permission to stay PAST the expiry of the contract by the landlord against the will of the other housemates and then keeping the original tenants deposit even though he did not want the subtenant to stay longer. The landlord said he felt sorry for him so he let him stay on. He even signed up bills and internet in his own name so the subtenant would be comfortable.

The rest of the deposits were returned to us at the end of the contract (with some deducted for cleaning, even though it was cleaner than when we moved in) . The landlord told the lead tenant that the other housemates , except 2, had asked for the deposits to be returned to him instead of the lead tenant. This was not the case.

The sub tenant then stayed on ( past his agreed term with the landlord) without the landlords permission. The landlord was forced to put the subtenant up in a hotel for 3 weeks before the new tenants moved in.

He then kept the original tenant of the rooms deposit even though he had not deducted it from the DPS and they told the landlord they did not want the deposit to be released to him or the subtenant to stay in the room. Now we are getting emails from the landlord saying he has had legal advice and is going to sue us unless we pay him some money back over £600.

Can he do this? Is the tenancy now over or has he a claim against us? What about the fact he gave permission for the subtenant to stay past the expiry of the contract? And he didn't deduct the money from the DPS ?

Any help would be most appreciated.

G_M

c88 wrote: »

There was a group of 5 of us renting a house in the UK . We signed a standard private agreement. The landlord gave us permission to sub let 2 rooms due to people moving out early.

The tenancy was coming to an end and the sub tenant was given permission to stay PAST the expiry of the contract by the landlord
How? Letter to sub-tenant? To the tenants? Phonecall? What precise wording used, to whom, and how?
against the will of the other housemates and then keeping the original tenants deposit even though he did not want the subtenant to stay longer.
but you've just said he gave permission....??
The landlord said he felt sorry for him so he let him stay on. He even signed up bills and internet in his own name so the subtenant would be comfortable.
So - subject to more detail needed, it looks like the tenancy ended, the tenants left, and a new tenancy was created between the LL and the former sub-tenant.

Was any arrangement made about rent?

The rest of the deposits were returned to us at the end of the contract (with some deducted for cleaning, even though it was cleaner than when we moved in) .
????? please explain. Just now you said: "then keeping the original tenants deposit " so did the LL keep or return the deposit?

The landlord told the lead tenant that the other housemates , except 2, had asked for the deposits to be returned to him instead of the lead tenant. This was not the case.
Now I'm totally confused.

The sub tenant then stayed on ( past his agreed term with the landlord) without the landlords permission.
Ah! So there was an 'agreed Term'. So there was a tenancy. Since a LL cannot apply to court to end a tenancy in the first 6 months, the former sub-tenant (now tenant) was secure for 6 months.
The landlord was forced to put the subtenant up in a hotel for 3 weeks before the new tenants moved in.
Presumably that was what the 'tenant' requested in return for giving up the tenancy.

He then kept the original tenant of the rooms deposit
errr... the depsoit he'd returned?
even though he had not deducted it from the DPS
??????:eek:
and they (DPS?) told the landlord they did not want the deposit to be released to him or the subtenant to stay in the room.
is it just me? Or has this story gone mad?
Now we are getting emails from the landlord saying he has had legal advice and is going to sue us unless we pay him some money back over £600.
Ah! OK. This I can help with. Ignore the emails. Don't reply. Zilch.

Can he do this?
Send you emails? Yes
Sue you? Yes.
Win in court? No.
Is the tenancy now over
Well, subject to more information, I think yes your original tenancy is over.
or has he a claim against us?
I doubt it.
What about the fact he gave permission for the subtenant to stay past the expiry of the contract? And he didn't deduct the money from the DPS ?

Any help would be most appreciated.

No idea what you mean by "didn't deduct the money from the DPS". So is the deposit still protected by DPS? Have you made a claim?

Oh! No. Sorry. you said: "The rest of the deposits were returned to us at the end of the contract "

Additional question: were you all on a single 'joint and several' tenancy? Because you seem to be referring to separate deposits which implies separate tenacies...........

c88

Sorry for being so confusing.

The original tenant didn't want he ST to stay longer because he wanted his deposit back.

There was a verbal agreement with the subtenant an the LL.

We all had our names on the tenancy agreement but the deposit was in a lump sum on the contract. Confusing i know.

2 deposits amount were returned to the lead tenant and 3 to the LL. He returned 2 and kept one ( to over the ST i guess )

All the tenants told the landlord they wanted the deposits to be released to the lead tenant. However the LL told the lead tenant, who had moved out, that 3 of the deposits amounts were to be returned to him.

and by the 'No idea what you mean by "didn't deduct the money from the DPS". So is the deposit still protected by DPS? Have you made a claim?'
I thought he had to make deductions from the deposits before they were released ?

bouicca21

I think OP means that 5 people were tenants (as GM says, what sort of tenancy arrangement? Is this actually an HMO?). One left early, let's call him/her Bob. Bob did not get his/her deposit back and the room was sublet.

When the contract came to an end, the four remaining tenants left and got their deposits back, subject to some deductions. The sub tenant stayed on with the agreement of the landlord (what evidence is there of the agreement?). None of the original tenants, including Bob, wanted this. Bob did not get his deposit.

Sub tenant overstayed causing landlord grief, plus had to be put up in a hotel. Landlord wants compensation, and is pursuing all 5 of the original tenants.

Being generous I am going to assume that OP is not a native speaker of English.

c88

assured short shorthold tenancy agreement is what it was.

I have emails from the LL that in his words...I realise it’s been some time since the contract ended but unfortunately there was a mistake with the deposit repayment.

As you know you all signed a group (joint and several) contract which means you were all equally liable for rent and costs.
This also means that you each contributed to a group deposit held by the DPS with 5 names on it (not 5 separate deposits).

Against my better judgement, I triggered the repayment from the DPS with one sub-let tenant (Mr M) remaining in the house.
He claimed he had nowhere else to live and assured me he would leave soon; frankly I felt sorry for him.

I understand the LL position but it was not us who agreed for him to stay. It was the LL.

He is saying he has a strong case to sue us and recover the costs and compensation. is this true ?

dgtazzman

Not a specialist, but I would say that email puts the onus on the LL. Why would the LL put 'M' up in a hotel for 3 weeks anyway? Sounds ludicrous to me, or we are missing a big chunk of the story...

I'd also say releasing the DPS funds as he did might well be shooting himself in the foot, I imagine doing this won't do him many favours in court.

Pixie5740

c88 wrote: »

assured short shorthold tenancy agreement is what it was.

Yes we know it was an AST but was it one AST that you were all named on (joint and several) or did you have five separate AST (one each)?

dancingfairy

It's definitely complicated. Frankly the landlord can claim whatever he likes and say he's seem a lawyer, and he's got a good case and he's going to sue you all, and ... and ... (anyway can say all that and spout rubbish with no truth behind it).
In order to get to the bottom of it I think you would need specialist advice, which may well cost you.
Has he actually been to see a lawyer? Would he be bothered to take it to court? Would he win? Would he actually get the money back (winning in court and actually getting any money back are different things).
It might be worth just sending a denial email or letter back and waiting to see. I would guess that he's happy enough sending you stroppy emails but actually having to go to court...?
IF (and it's an IF) he actually decides to issue court papers, then you might want to get proper advice. In the meantime, I'd probably send him an email saying the tenancy ended on x date (when you all moved out), Mr X stayed past this (at the request of the landlord) and therefore this was a new tenancy agreement, it's nothing to do with the rest of you now. Put the ball back in the landlords court and see what he does next.
That's what I'd do I think.
df

c88

we were all named on one contract

HouseBuyer77

However the LL told the lead tenant, who had moved out, that 3 of the deposits amounts were to be returned to him.

Against my better judgement, I triggered the repayment from the DPS

So the lead tenant received the full deposit back and then the LL tried to claw some back?

Or did he release the deposit minus one share?

When you left did he do a check out of some kind (an inspection)?

I think the best thing to do would be to reply to the LL stating that your tenancy finished on date X as evidenced by the return of deposit, checkout inspection, acceptance of keys etc (If you've got some letters or emails confirming you will all be leaving so much the better). The fact that the LL decided to let your subtentant continue to stay on is not your problem, nor is his decision to put him up in a hotel.

AndyBSG

I would have thought this was fairly straight forward.

LL released the deposit when the last 4 original tenants left so he obviously had no issues or claims for deductions.

Sub Tenant remained in the property.

LL then found some things he had issues with and wanted repaired/replaced/etc.

The simple answer surely is that the LL can not prove the issues he wants to claim for were not caused by the sub tenant AFTER the original tenants had already ended their tenancy?

So, the onus on him is to be able to prove that any work he is claiming deposit for was NOT caused after the original tenancy ended.