Can I get fired for this?

Comms69

libramoon175 wrote: »

I work at KPMG as an audit assistant. For reasons too complicated to explain here, my landlord has started eviction proceedings against me. it looks like i'll get a CCJ for rent owed.
KPMG will find out - can this get me fired?

But why aren't you paying your rent?


Just to be clear, as often unknown, if you pay with-in 28 days then no CCJ is registered.

Comms69

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Were you really expecting her to pay nearly £1200 just to move out? If its a joint tenancy surely she could have just given notice and left without being responsible for anything extra? You're very lucky she's contributing to the setup fees for your new tenancy, that doesn't benefit her in any way, at all!

Indeed, and on top of which lucky they aren't being charged double rent...

martinsurrey

libramoon175 wrote: »

or even the ICAEW? I'm currently taking my exams!

https://www.icaew.com/for-current-aca-students/applying-for-membership/fit-and-proper

Avoid a CCJ at all costs!

"failure to satisfy a judgement debt"

better to pay it safe and pay the fees, and then chase with your own action than risk a very lucrative career.

Manxman_in_exile

I'm confused.


Why did the other tenant (who is staying) tell the new tenant that they wouldn't have to pay any fees if the rest of you are?


I would have thought this was a simple accountancy problem. (You work for KPMG?).


You and the other tenant who is staying pay your shares of the (annual?) fees.


The other one third of the fees should be apportioned between the old tenant and the new one depending on how far through the year you are. If the leaving tenant is being expected to pay a full year's fees, I'm not surprised their annoyed!


This seems so obvious to me I must be missing something!


If I were you I'd be worried about my employer finding out I couldn't work this out!


(Am I missing something obvious here?)

steampowered

libramoon175 wrote: »

i could pay, but who would i take to small claims court? as we are jointly responsible for the fees and there is no specification in the tenancy agreement who should pay for what.

The legal basis for your claim would be the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978.

If you and the leaving tenant were jointly and severally liable for a debt, and you pay all of it, this legislation allows you to pursue the leaving tenant for a contribution which the court considers to be 'just and equitable' in the circumstances.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/47/section/2

I agree that there is a question mark over what would be 'just and equitable' in the circumstances. The letting agent's recommendation won't be legally binding.

But on the other hand if this person is leaving the tenancy I would have thought they should pick up all the associated costs (unless there is an agreement to the contrary).

NineDeuce

"For reasons too complicated to explain here"

Rent owed isnt a complicated reason...

Comms69

steampowered wrote: »

The legal basis for your claim would be the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978.

If you and the leaving tenant were jointly and severally liable for a debt, and you pay all of it, this legislation allows you to pursue the leaving tenant for a contribution which the court considers to be 'just and equitable' in the circumstances.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/47/section/2

I agree that there is a question mark over what would be 'just and equitable' in the circumstances. The letting agent's recommendation won't be legally binding.

But on the other hand if this person is leaving the tenancy I would have thought they should pick up all the associated costs (unless there is an agreement to the contrary).

Technically theres no such things as leaving the tenancy.


Any tenant can end a joint tenancy, so in reality, she did the OP a favour by finding a replacement.


As such, I cant construe that the leaving tenant should be liable at all

Manxman_in_exile

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Were you really expecting her to pay nearly £1200 just to move out? If its a joint tenancy surely she could have just given notice and left without being responsible for anything extra? You're very lucky she's contributing to the setup fees for your new tenancy, that doesn't benefit her in any way, at all!

I'm inclined to agree with this view (although I'm not sure about the amount). Why did the other remaining tenant tell the incoming tenant they wouldn't need to pay these "fees" (whatever they are?*).


The OP and the other remaining tenant pay their shares of the fees (1/3rd each) and the remaining 1/3rd should have been apportioned appropriately between the incoming and outgoing tenant. What's difficult about that for an accountancy student?


AIUI the outgoing tenant has already stumped up for 1/4tr of the fees, so are we simply talking about the difference between 1/3rd and 1/4tr? And you are now facing eviction? Can none of you see sense?


* For an employee of KPMG you've not done a very good job of explaining what you are talking about.

Comms69

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree with this view (although I'm not sure about the amount). Why did the other remaining tenant tell the incoming tenant they wouldn't need to pay these "fees" (whatever they are?*).


The OP and the other remaining tenant pay their shares of the fees (1/3rd each) and the remaining 1/3rd should have been apportioned appropriately between the incoming and outgoing tenant. What's difficult about that for an accountancy student?


AIUI the outgoing tenant has already stumped up for 1/4tr of the fees, so are we simply talking about the difference between 1/3rd and 1/4tr? And you are now facing eviction? Can none of you see sense?


* For an employee of KPMG you've not done a very good job of explaining what you are talking about.

It's a common issue with joint tenancies.


And fees are to be made illegal shortly, so this wont be occurring for much longer, 12-18 months maximum.


Basically a new tenancy is being set up, which is nothing to do with the outgoing tenant.

Manxman_in_exile

libramoon175 wrote: »

thanks everyone.
yeah it's a tricky situation. she doesn't work for the same company as me but she feels the fees are unfair - me and the other tenant feel she should pay them as she is the one moving out, but she is only willing to pay 1/4 (wants me and the other tenant to pay a share, and the incoming tenant). the other flatmate told the incoming tenant he didn't have to pay any fees and the outgoing tenant will pay them all, so shes really annoyed and refusing to pay someone else's share. plus the agency recommended the fee split so in court that might mean something and i don't know if i could take her to small claims over that.

What are these "fees"? Are they:


(a) some kind of "penalty" fee the outgoing tenant has incurred because they are leaving, and they solely are liable for, or


(b) some kind of (annual) agency fee (which you have already referred to previously) which you should be sharing between you all?


If (a) then OK. But if (b) then I completely understand the annoyance of the outgoing tenant. You say that they've agreed to pay a 1/4tr and you are upset they won't pay 1/3rd? As I've said in two previous posts, surely the outstanding 1/3rd should have been apportioned between the outgoing and incoming tenants depending on the lengths of their respective tenancies.


I'm no good at mental arithmetic but isn't the difference between 1/3rd and 1/4tr about 1/12th? ie a single month! What are you all arguing about?


Of course, the other remaining tenant could pay as they told the incomer that they wouldn't need to pay any fees without the rest of you agreeing to this!


I don't think the agency's suggestion necessarily carries any weight, unless it happens to be the correct answer. Can't you calculate the correct apportionment before eviction and/or CCJ?


(Apologies for rant - I don't understand how anyone studying for ICAEW could get in this mess - or be so bad at explaining exactly what has happened).


And if I've missed something blindingly obvious or have got completely the wrong end of the stick - my sincere apologies to the OP.