Ex not paying rent in joint tenancy

sharp910sh

I think I am best to speak to a solicitor it seems. Even if I surrendered the tenancy its unlikely the LL would agree.

sharp910sh

Guest101 wrote: »

Being a bit naughty and cherry picking what i'm saying.


Both parties are equally liable for the whole rent.


That does not mean that they cannot have a separate agreement on how the rent is paid, and that does not mean that the agreement is not enforceable.

Yes we are both fully liable for the rent. And we have a separate agreement of how the rent is paid. She has broken this agreement.

Guest101

Poppie68 wrote: »

It's my understanding that the op will only suffer a loss as the LL would go after both of the tenants for any debt, therefore the op would need to be proactive in cutting his losses. The ex has tried to surrender the tenancy but the op refuses so may struggle to get a judgment against her..
Op it maybe worth you trying to get a free half our consultation with a solicitor.

I'm sorry but that simply isn't correct.


Both parties have a debt. The OP does not need to mitigate it, as it is not a loss.


As I've said already if it was this simple, tenants would be moving out at any point in their contracts.


It's perfectly reasonable to split the rent due between the parties, and such agreements are very much enforceable.

Guest101

sharp910sh wrote: »

Yes we are both fully liable for the rent. And we have a separate agreement of how the rent is paid. She has broken this agreement.

Exactly, which is why I don't agree with others about needing to mitigate this.


The rent is due regardless.

chappers

Guest101 wrote: »

Unfortunately I think you're looking at this incorrectly.


It's not to do with the rental contract at all. She owes rent on two places by her own choice. That continues whether or not the OP takes her to court.


But ultimately a court will decide

I am aware of that and did re-iterate that several times, and was in no way implying she could just walk away from the rental contract, however the "contract" between the two of them is dependent upon the rental contract, which she has clearly demonstrated she wants to surrender as she can't fulfil her obligations to the "contract" between them and has made a reasonable suggestion as to how they can both mitigate their losses i.e. surrender their joint tenancy. However he has refused and is therefore wilfully incurring further losses to both of them.

When my Sister split up with her partner she had moved out of the house and wanted to sell the property, but her partner refused and took her to court claiming she should pay him for half the mortgage as he was struggling to pay it on his own.
It was ruled that whilst he had every right not to agree to the sale of the property and that she was still legally responsible for the mortgage, he had no right to ask her for half, as there was a proposal, which would mitigate both their losses , but that if they did sell then she would be responsible for her half of the costs involved, including on going mortgage payments.

Taking the ex to court for monies owed is one thing, but the OP originally wanted to enforce the contract between them, I now notice he is asking whether to chase her for the money after the fact, when the tenancy ends and as above I think he would be on sticky ground as she has made a proposal to mitigate both their losses.

Pixie5740

sharp910sh wrote: »

I think I am best to speak to a solicitor it seems. Even if I surrendered the tenancy its unlikely the LL would agree.

If you don't ask your landlord then you'll never know. Still it's better to go and waste money consulting a solicitor instead.

Mountain out of molehill.

Guest101

chappers wrote: »

I am aware of that and did re-iterate that several times, and was in no way implying she could just walk away from the rental contract, however the "contract" between the two of them is dependent upon the rental contract - So far agree with you., which she has clearly demonstrated she wants to surrender as she can't fulfil her obligations to the "contract" - we're assuming the LL would agree, which im not convinced. between them and has made a reasonable suggestion as to how they can both mitigate their losses - write off their debt, usually in exchange for a one off payment. Debt, not loss. i.e. surrender their joint tenancy. However he has refused and is therefore wilfully incurring further losses to both of them. - Not losses. It's a debt.

When my Sister split up with her partner she had moved out of the house and wanted to sell the property, but her partner refused and took her to court claiming she should pay him for half the mortgage as he was struggling to pay it on his own.
It was ruled that whilst he had every right not to agree to the sale of the property and that she was still legally responsible for the mortgage, he had no right to ask her for half, as there was a proposal, which would mitigate both their losses , but that if they did sell then she would be responsible for her half of the costs involved, including on going mortgage payments. - Im sorry that makes no sense. How can there be ongoing mortgage payments if the house is being sold. Im guessing this was mediation, rather than court? However, I will add that slightly different as with the owned property they were able to sell. This would be asking the LL to effectively end the contract.

Taking the ex to court for monies owed is one thing, but the OP originally wanted to enforce the contract between them, I now notice he is asking whether to chase her for the money after the fact, when the tenancy ends and as above I think he would be on sticky ground as she has made a proposal to mitigate both their losses.

On top of this, the ex has demonstrated that she agreed with this by making 4 payments. The court would consider this.

Miss_Samantha

I would think that the consideration is that they can enjoy the benefit of the tenancy.

Poppie68 wrote: »

It's my understanding that the op will only suffer a loss as the LL would go after both of the tenants for any debt, therefore the op would need to be proactive in cutting his losses. The ex has tried to surrender the tenancy but the op refuses so may struggle to get a judgment against her..
Op it maybe worth you trying to get a free half our consultation with a solicitor.

Hi Poppie68,

You make a good point that OP may have to wait befor paying the ex's share in order to mitigat his loss.
On the other hand, the risk of eviction may also be a loss that needs mitigated in principle...

Legal advice would be useful, indeed.

mrginge

Guest101 wrote: »

I'm sorry but that simply isn't correct.
Both parties have a debt. The OP does not need to mitigate it, as it is not a loss.

Tbh I don't think you understand what a debt is, what a loss is, and what the relationship is between the two.

As I've said already if it was this simple, tenants would be moving out at any point in their contracts.

Again, you are confusing a rental contract between LL and Ts (where there is no requirement to mitigate for rent arrears as per reichmann vs beveridge) and the specific agreement between OP and GF (which is in effect more an indemnity or guarantee). In this case the OP *should* attempt to take reasonable steps to mitigate his losses and therefore limit the amount of any damages claim.

You can spend five minutes googling mitigation and law of damages to understand it if you want.

Guest101

mrginge wrote: »

Tbh I don't think you understand what a debt is, what a loss is, and what the relationship is between the two.

Debt - An amount of money owed, usually in exchange for money lent, or goods or services provided.


Loss - A loss of money which has happened due to the action, or inaction, of another party for which a contract existed.


As for the relationship, a loss would be the cost of action to evict a tenant for example. The LL would have to make sure his 'loss' was mitigated, which is why solicitor costs are often not considered in claims for costs, because they are not deemed to be necessary and therefore the LL has not mitigated his loss (the cost of the solicitor).

Again, you are confusing a rental contract between LL and Ts (where there is no requirement to mitigate for rent arrears as per reichmann vs beveridge) - despite what you've previously said on the subject, im glad you are now aware of this and the specific agreement between OP and GF (which is in effect more an indemnity or guarantee) - That's one way to look at it. In this case the OP *should* attempt to take reasonable steps to mitigate his losses and therefore limit the amount of any damages claim. - the OP must only mitigate his losses when the contract is breached. That does not mean voiding the contract just because the other party breached it.

You can spend five minutes googling mitigation and law of damages to understand it if you want.

Just because the OP must mitigate his loss - in relation to the breach of contract - does not mean that the mitigation must be one of voiding the contract.