Being taken to court for unpaid rent for 3 months we were not there. HELP!

doodledoodle24

Hi everyone, just got in from work and my other half has shown me the whole of this thread.
I know this is a money saving forum, but I am willing to pay for my share of the 'so called' outstanding rent, which is 1400 of the 2100 being claimed for. This is not because I feel I am in the wrong, this is due to the fact that I now know that, by law, I am at fault. My argument to the court will be that after the agency communicated that the LL wanted me out, I agreed with the agency to move out at the end of the month (June), and I though that was mutualy agreeing to end the tennancy early.

I have a audio recording of me making it abundantly clear to the agency, that I did not want to just leave the property and leave the LL in the s**t, as I would still be liable to pay rent for the remainder of the agreement.

Don't think I can use this though as I didn't tell the agency rep, that she was being recorded during her visit.

There was a verbal agreement between myself and the second signing tenant on the agreement that I paid 2/3 (466) of the 700 a month and my then friend paid the 1/3 remaining.

My main problem is that the second tenant doesn't care for the law, won't turn up at court and won't pay anything if the court rules anyway.

Naive for just moving out. I know this now, If I could bottle the power of hind sight to sell, I wouldn't be worrying about 2 grand to pay out.

I'm representing myself on the day (15th of this month). The fact that I may get a CCJ doesn't bother me that much. Not into mobiles, been with the same bank for 10 years, will never get a credit card again (not after my experiance of them at 18-another story) and my neck of the woods, I'd have to work until I'm 105 to be able to get a mortgage on a 2 bed house.

I appreciate what having a poor credit rating can do to your life style though, hense the need for my guarantor.

All of your comments are enlightening, If anyone can think of anything else to help would be greatly appreciated.

MissMoneypenny

Do you have anything that states that the agency acts for the landlord? Did the agency sign the contract for the LL?

Do you have anything in writing that states the LL wanted you out?

nutmeg13

i used to work for a letting agents and basicaly a verbal agreement with the agency means nothing they would not be able to let you leave your tenancy early without the agreement of the LL first. If there was anyway that you could talk to the LL directly you maybe able to come to some sort of agreement with him as it sounds like he needs to take the agency to court how long was you at the property?

doodledoodle24

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Do you have anything that states that the agency acts for the landlord? Did the agency sign the contract for the LL?

Do you have anything in writing that states the LL wanted you out?

I have a letter telling us we are liable for the gas charges from 02/03/2007 in that states 'We reperesent the landlord of the above property' but thats it. They also signed the tenancy on behalf of the LL.

doodledoodle24

nutmeg13 wrote: »

i used to work for a letting agents and basicaly a verbal agreement with the agency means nothing they would not be able to let you leave your tenancy early without the agreement of the LL first. If there was anyway that you could talk to the LL directly you maybe able to come to some sort of agreement with him as it sounds like he needs to take the agency to court how long was you at the property?

4 months, paid rent for the first 3.

BobProperty

doodledoodle24 wrote: »

..... but I am willing to pay for my share of the 'so called' outstanding rent, which is 1400 of the 2100 being claimed for.....My main problem is that the second tenant doesn't care for the law, won't turn up at court and won't pay anything if the court rules anyway.....

I regret to inform you that you may well get landed with the whole bill. I suspect the tenancy agreement holds all the tenants "jointly and severally" liable. That means that any one or any number of the parties to the agreement can be held liable for the agreement. So, in this case, the landlord is after 3 months rent and will get it (assuming the court finds in their favour) off anyone they can. If the second tenant has any assets or a decent job they can try and get some or all the money off him. If he's abroad, on the dole, etc. they can get it all off you. If neither of you have much money the they can get it off the guarantor (hence my earlier comment) as he has guaranteed one person who is "jointly and severally" liable. I may be wrong on this point, but I can't see why just being a guarantor gets you out of the "jointly and severally" part.
Awaits other comments.....

clutton_2

tenants are each responsible for the complete rent if other tenants renege on their agreement - this may not sound fair, or right, but, it is the law, and is in the tenancy agreement that you signed. If you did not understand the agreement you signed, the law will say, and the judge in court will say, that you had no business signing it.

i know it feels terribly unfair that you are now responsible for "so-called" outstanding rent - but try to see the bigger picture - why should the landlord suffer because two tenants fall out with each other over money ?

if the other party did not have the money why did he sign the agreement ?
if you knew he could not afford it why did you sign the agreement ?
if you did not understand "joint and several" why didn't you ask someone before you signed it ?

This may be the most important lesson you learn in your financial education - never sign ANYthing if you dont fully understand it.

coal9011

kunekune wrote: »

Have now looked things up and can see that the 'small claims' process is very different from NZ's disputes tribunal. All the normal legal rules apply and presumably the adjudicator is a lawyer. I was thinking of a system where, effectively, the real question was 'is this fair' rather than 'does the law allow us to do this'.

I still think that OP has a reasonable claim, based on the way in which they were manipulated into leaving (and thus the belief they didn't have to pay rent). Were any invoices sent????

Should add I've been both a tenant (am one right now) and a landlord. I am genuinely neutral.

Yes kunekune, I learned many years ago that the "Law" and "Justice" (fairness) are two entirely different things!

NovaBlack_2

you know what you could say....


since you werent being given a gas safety certifacate (after asking multiple times) (and which broke the law by not providing you with one) , you could claim you moved out because the house was not safe to live in

therefore if it wasnt safe, then the house was NOT 'availible' for you to live in, therfore you shouldnt have to pay rent...

long shot but... hmm

Debt_Free_Chick

NovaBlack wrote: »

you know what you could say....


since you werent being given a gas safety certifacate (after asking multiple times) (and which broke the law by not providing you with one) , you could claim you moved out because the house was not safe to live in

therefore if it wasnt safe, then the house was NOT 'availible' for you to live in, therfore you shouldnt have to pay rent...

long shot but... hmm

I think the difficulty here that there is no evidence that the house was unsafe. As I said earlier, if the appliance had been inspected and declared unsafe, it would have simply been disconnected. Had this happened, it would then have been for the LL to have the appliance put right, but the entire house would not have been declared "uninhabitable". They just would have been without certain facilities for what would probably have been a relatively short period of time.

The whole situation is simply one of ignorance - I don't mean that in the rude sense, just that the tenants didn't fully understand the contractual nature of the tenancy agreement they signed.

Now, the Judge might be sympathetic as they are so young and inexperienced - but it's a simple case of debt collection. I don't think the Judge will have any option but to award the amount claimed to the LL.