Joint Tenancy Nightmare!

Bohbadonde

Hi all,

All the contract says with regards to leaving is:

"(15) that if the tenant gives notice to leave the property before this agreement has ended the tenant must pay reasonable costs (1 weeks rent) for re-letting the property as well as paying the rent until a new tenant moves in."

But that:

" (21) if the agreement is made with more than one tenant, then they will be signing in partnership each tenants liability being joint and several."

It's worth noting I had to find a copy of the tenancy agreement in an email attachment the lettings agent sent to all of us shortly after moving in. The other tenants took the original and when challenged said 'we haven't seen it, we thought you had it'...

Guest101

Bohbadonde wrote: »

Hi all,

All the contract says with regards to leaving is:

"(15) that if the tenant gives notice to leave the property before this agreement has ended the tenant must pay reasonable costs (1 weeks rent) for re-letting the property as well as paying the rent until a new tenant moves in."

But that:

" (21) if the agreement is made with more than one tenant, then they will be signing in partnership each tenants liability being joint and several."

It's worth noting I had to find a copy of the tenancy agreement in an email attachment the lettings agent sent to all of us shortly after moving in. The other tenants took the original and when challenged said 'we haven't seen it, we thought you had it'...

Why was that worth noting? You should've kept a separate copy.


So are you paying the one weeks rent? or the other tenants?


clause 21 is no help to you, it means whatever one of the tenants does applies to all the tenants.

FBaby

The agent, and LL, don't care who pays what, they just want to make sure they get the full rent each month, once the liability being joint and several. However, although it means that the rent needs to be paid in full, it does't mean that the responsibility automatically fall under you to do so. They are breaking the terms of the contract and as such, they need to either find someone else to pay or continue to pay.

If you told them that you would pay, then that was a silly thing to say. You should have told them that under no circumstances were you agreeing to pay for them and that they remain responsible, and that if you had to pay their share because they didn't or didn't find someone else to do so -with your agreement-, you would then sue them.

However, if you've decided you were happy to have the place for yourself only and were happy to pay, well, that was your choice and in this instance, I understand they want to release themselves from any financial responsibility so that you can't change your mind and sue them retrospectively, taking away their right to find someone else to replace them.

DumbMuscle

Is there a definitions section at the start of the contract? How does it define "tenant"? There may be wording along the lines of "in the case where there is more than one tenant, "tenant" shall be taken to refer to all of them collectively unless otherwise specified".

I believe that "signing in partnership" effectively means that all of you collectively are "the tenant", so they cannot give notice under S15 without the consent of all tenants - but I'm not certain on that.

Guest101

DumbMuscle wrote: »

Is there a definitions section at the start of the contract? How does it define "tenant"? There may be wording along the lines of "in the case where there is more than one tenant, "tenant" shall be taken to refer to all of them collectively unless otherwise specified".

I believe that "signing in partnership" effectively means that all of you collectively are "the tenant", so they cannot give notice under S15 without the consent of all tenants - but I'm not certain on that.

It's the opposite, one of them can give notice binding upon all

G_M

Guest101 wrote: »

It's the opposite, one of them can give notice binding upon all

No.

This applies in a periodic tenancy.

In a fixed term contract, all joint signaturers to the contract must sign.

(don't ask me for a reference - I can't remember how I know this! It's probably within basic contract law, thus applying to the original fixed term contract, whereas a subsequent periodic is goverened by statute. But don't quote me on that!)

The options remain as outlined in post 7 above.

FBaby

Come November, if there are any issues the agent has regarding the condition of the flat, it seems only right that they are responsible also as they lived here for 8 out of the 12 months...in that time they obviously made use of the kitchen and communal areas, and could have potentially damaged something that at the end of the tenancy the LA wants to charge us for.

On this matter, you need to sort this out with the old tenants. If you are going to sign a deed of assignment, then negotiate their exit. Of course you can't be 100% sure of what the LL might decide to say should be withheld from the deposit, but you can get a good idea. Do an inspection of the communal rooms and if you think they have caused damage, the ask them to pay before you sign the deeds.

Guest101

G_M wrote: »

No.

This applies in a periodic tenancy.

In a fixed term contract, all joint signaturers to the contract must sign.

(don't ask me for a reference - I can't remember how I know this! It's probably within basic contract law, thus applying to the original fixed term contract, whereas a subsequent periodic is goverened by statute. But don't quote me on that!)

The options remain as outlined in post 7 above.

interesting, not fully aware of what you've mentioned, so happy to accept it in a general principle. I'd question however when we look at clause 21 - " (21) if the agreement is made with more than one tenant, then they will be signing in partnership each tenants liability being joint and several."
- This would in my opinion mean that each person can act as the representative of all others.


I think we can explore this somepoint. But a common example would be: A joint utility bill, which would only require one person to make changes, or one person to switch suppliers.


In any case, it's only a minor speed bump potentially down the road, so happy to leave it for now.

DumbMuscle

Guest101 wrote: »

interesting, not fully aware of what you've mentioned, so happy to accept it in a general principle. I'd question however when we look at clause 21 - " (21) if the agreement is made with more than one tenant, then they will be signing in partnership each tenants liability being joint and several."
- This would in my opinion mean that each person can act as the representative of all others.


I think we can explore this somepoint. But a common example would be: A joint utility bill, which would only require one person to make changes, or one person to switch suppliers.


In any case, it's only a minor speed bump potentially down the road, so happy to leave it for now.

There is potentially a difference between making changes on behalf of the partnership, and wanting to leave the partnership (which is effectively what the other tenants are doing). If I had a joint utility bill, I would not expect to be able to make it a sole utility bill in the other person's name without their consent!

Guest101

DumbMuscle wrote: »

There is potentially a difference between making changes on behalf of the partnership, and wanting to leave the partnership (which is effectively what the other tenants are doing). If I had a joint utility bill, I would not expect to be able to make it a sole utility bill in the other person's name without their consent!

Hypothetically then, are you saying that should you wish to leave and they other party didn't agree you would still be liable?