Estate Agent refusing to remove my name from tenancy

Guest101

martinsurrey wrote: »

If you wrote that letter to your mortgage company, and gave them £100 to discharge your mortgage and they agreed, you would have settled your mortgage...

they couldn't come back 10 months later and say "we've changed our minds"

I think the question is - what was the £120 for.


It sounds like it was to remove the name from the tenancy - which the LL cant do without all parties agreeing.

eddddy

saajan_12 wrote: »

Unfortunately they are correct, though you may be due your £120 back. You had a tenancy contract binding on all parties whereby both tenants may live in and are jointly responsible for rent, damage etc and can be terminated per the contractual or statutory notice terms outlined. If you wish to alter the contract or terminate it outside those terms, all parties must agree to the change (landlord and EACH tenant).

Your documentation represents your consent to terminate your involement, and the acceptance of £120 in exchange for the receipt indicates the LL's consent to terminate but the ex partner has not agreed. Indeed they don't have to agree to be solely liable for the rent etc when they had bargained for a joint liability. However since the LL/agent is unable to grant you the benefit of your £120 i.e. your name off the tenancy, you may be due this back.

So the tenancy agreement is still in force.

But the OP seems to have entered into a separate agreement with the agent, where the agent that makes the OP no longer responsible for the property, in return for a payment of £120.

(That later agreement doesn't mention terminating the tenancy.)

I'd say it's reasonable for the OP to have assumed that the agent/LL was offering some kind of indemnity from any future costs associated with the tenancy agreement.

If that's not what the agent intended, then what did they intend?

i.e. In layman's terms: "pay us £120 now, and you won't have to pay any more costs associated with the tenancy later"

martinsurrey

Guest101 wrote: »

I think the question is - what was the £120 for.


It sounds like it was to remove the name from the tenancy - which the LL cant do without all parties agreeing.

Giving the wording of the letter they accepted, it wasn't to remove the name from the tenancy, its to absolve the OP of responsibility, which the LL can unilaterally do (its just agreeing not to pursue one party in the contract, which is his right under joint and severable liability).

The OP's ex is in no way worse off, the LL could always have just pursued him for the rent, thats the LL's perogative.

the ex could have a case against the OP if the LL does only pursue him, but that's a separate issue.

Guest101

martinsurrey wrote: »

Giving the wording of the letter they accepted, it wasn't to remove the name from the tenancy, its to absolve the OP of responsibility, which the LL can unilaterally do (its just agreeing not to pursue one party in the contract, which is his right under joint and severable liability).

The OP's ex is in no way worse off, the LL could always have just pursued him for the rent, thats the LL's perogative.

the ex could have a case against the OP if the LL does only pursue him, but that's a separate issue.

I do understand what you're saying. But the wording, in my opinion, isn't that clear. The only relevant section for our purposes: will no longer be responsible for this property.

That doesn't necessarily absolve any rent due.


Agreed the ex may have a case


ultimately it's up to a court to decide

dawn1974

saajan_12 wrote: »

Unfortunately they are correct, though you may be due your £120 back. You had a tenancy contract binding on all parties whereby both tenants may live in and are jointly responsible for rent, damage etc and can be terminated per the contractual or statutory notice terms outlined. If you wish to alter the contract or terminate it outside those terms, all parties must agree to the change (landlord and EACH tenant).

Your documentation represents your consent to terminate your involement, and the acceptance of £120 in exchange for the receipt indicates the LL's consent to terminate but the ex partner has not agreed. Indeed they don't have to agree to be solely liable for the rent etc when they had bargained for a joint liability. However since the LL/agent is unable to grant you the benefit of your £120 i.e. your name off the tenancy, you may be due this back.

I went in the Estate Agent with my brother so he is a witness to what went on.

The lady in the Estate Agents rang head office and they agreed to remove my name from the tenancy.

She wrote the above letter on their letter headed paper and got me to sign and hand the keys over.

Nothing was mentioned to me about my ex needing to agree or anybody else.

dawn1974

G_M wrote: »

So you have nothing at all from the landlord, signed or unsigned.

Your letter is meaningless. I could write a letter today to my mortgage lender informing him I shall no longer be paying my mortgage. It ould have as much legal force.

As you have
a) a joint and several tenancy and
b) a periodic tenancy

you can serve written notice (one full tenancy period) to end the tenancy. Either joint tenant can do this and it binds both.

The difficulty arises if you don't both move out when the notice expires.

I didn't write the letter they did and got me to sign it.

Pixie5740

dawn1974 wrote: »

I didn't write the letter they did and got me to sign it.

Was it also signed by the landlord or an agent acting on his behalf? If not is the letter at least on headed paper?

eddddy

dawn1974 wrote: »

The lady in the Estate Agents rang head office and they agreed to remove my name from the tenancy.

It's probably better not to say that in your arguments with the agent - because they cannot remove your name from the tenancy.

Just say that they agreed that you are no longer responsible for the property - and that means you are no longer responsible for rent payments. (Because that's what the agreement you signed says.)

Guest101

eddddy wrote: »

It's probably better not to say that in your arguments with the agent - because they cannot remove your name from the tenancy.

Just say that they agreed that you are no longer responsible for the property - and that means you are no longer responsible for rent payments. (Because that's what the agreement you signed says.)

The agreement could read that the OP is not responsible for the condition the property is left in.


Which would make sense too

weejangus

Is it not the case, however, that if there is any ambiguity in a contract, it will often fall in favour of the party that did not write the contract? So, as the contract (or signed letter on headed paper) can be construed to mean more than one thing, it would be the OP's interpretation of the contract that would likely be accepted...

Law_Website wrote:

"in most jurisdictions, ambiguous contracts are said to be resolved “against” the party that drafted the contract."

Not 100% positive but just a thought.

J