Ex not paying rent in joint tenancy

Poppie68

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.


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.

I agree both have a debt but this is to the landlords....the op will only be suffering a loss.
If the op the op only pays his agreed amount then the landlord will go after both of them, then the op could go after the ex for his loss of her agreed amount.
It may not be a cut and dried case for him though as he hasn't tried to lessen his loss by agreeing to surrender the lease....That's if a surrender is possible?.

Guest101

Poppie68 wrote: »

I agree both have a debt but this is to the landlords....the op will only be suffering a loss.
If the op the op only pays his agreed amount then the landlord will go after both of them, then the op could go after the ex for his loss of her agreed amount.
It may not be a cut and dried case for him though as he hasn't tried to lessen his loss by agreeing to surrender the lease....That's if a surrender is possible?.

Crucial point in what you said:


the op will only be suffering a loss If the op the op only pays his agreed amount then the landlord will go after both of them, then the op could go after the ex for his loss of her agreed amount. - So he's mitigating his loss by going after the ex now, rather than incur extra fees for court costs and moving costs etc

sharp910sh

If I do not pay my rent the LL will go afterward both of us. So I am paying the rent with the aim of claiming the rent due from the ex.

Clearly if I do not pay the rent, it will not look good on me at all, currently the landlord is not involved as he is receiving all his rent from me.

I am wanting to go after ex now after she has ignored my request to pay the monies due to me and per our agreement which she happily agreed to.

She knows she has to pay the rent, but does not know how serious I am with taking legal action. I believe once I start taking legal action she knows on the balance of probabilities I will win the case. Unless she can demonstrate that I either have cancelled the agreement between us or I have said that I will pay the full rent.

If I go after my ex later I will have to pay 6 months worth or rent. If i go after my ex now then she will have to pay me the rent monies due. But my problem is an I go after her before the monies are due.

sharp910sh

I could easily stop paying her "portion" of the rent which she agreed, then the landlord will happily issue his section 8 once 2 months rent is due. And she will still have to pay her portion of the rent assuming the LL is fair and goes after both of us.

If l lived alone and stopped paying the rent the LL would just evict me and no one would question that.

Hopefully the judge is reasonable.

mrginge

Guest101 wrote: »

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).

Well, you just proved my point.

despite what you've previously said on the subject, im glad you are now aware of this

I love the way you make out like you had any sort of clue about the R v B case and that I've suddenly changed my opinion. In fact if you had even heard of this case you would know that your explanation of loss above is complete bobbins.

I can provide you with plenty of other cases that would demonstrate your ignorance too, but once again, Google can educate you...

Anyway, you clearly don't get the simple principles here so we'll call it a day.

Guest101

mrginge wrote: »

Well, you just proved my point.

- Does that mean you will now go away and let people discuss things without your 'expertise'?


I love the way you make out like you had any sort of clue about the R v B case and that I've suddenly changed my opinion. In fact if you had even heard of this case you would know that your explanation of loss above is complete bobbins.



- In the past you've insisted LLs had to mitigate their loss, despite being told it was a debt. Now you've changed your mind, it's a good thing.
- I'm glad you've limited what you consider a loss to a handful of cases.

I can provide you with plenty of other cases that would demonstrate your ignorance too, but once again, Google can educate you...


- It's ok, i'm happy with my understanding

Anyway, you clearly don't get the simple principles here so we'll call it a day.

Ok, bye bye

mrginge

Guest101 wrote: »

- In the past you've insisted LLs had to mitigate their loss, despite being told it was a debt. Now you've changed your mind, it's a good thing.

when was that then?

chappers

Guest101 wrote: »

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

Debt or losses in this case that's just semantics.

As to the surrender of the tenancy, the OP won't even consider that and won't know until he asks. I have let several tenants surrender early, with them being responsible for the rent, until a new tenant is found, and my expenses incurred re-letting.

With regards to my sisters situation the on going mortgage payments were those between the separation and the sale of the property, to which my sister wasn't contributing.
Yes it was mediation through a solicitor based mediator.
Just the same as the surrendering of the rental contract, with both parties sharing the costs of the surrender and mitigating against incurring further debt.

chappers

sharp910sh wrote: »

assuming the LL is fair and goes after both of us.

That is assuming he does, he is under no obligation to and may just come after you, particularly if he thinks he is more likely to get a positive outcome from you than her.

If you just let him evict you by only paying your share of the rent, then you won't have any losses/debt to chase your ex for and on that point you say you only have 6 months to run on your tenancy, if you continue paying your share of the rent, it will take over 4 months before you are two months in arrears and the LL can evict you under section 8.8 and probably the remainder of your tenancy to obtain a possession order.

Not necessarily the moral thing to do but you would then not have the expense of either chasing your ex or covering her rent and still be able to stay in the property.

As was stated right at the front of this thread you have plenty of other options than taking your ex to court.

Take a step back and work out what is best for you

libf

sharp910sh wrote: »

Hopefully the judge is reasonable.

Or the judge might think you're just being vindictive, because that's certainly the way this comes across...