Can I get fired for this?

Manxman_in_exile

*max* wrote: »

As I understand it (I may be wrong!), the outgoing tenant refuses to pay rent for the month AFTER she left, because the room could have been filled were it not for the bickering over who pays the fees (which she states should not be her). Correct?

For what it's worth, I think the outgoing tenant should pay 3/4 of the fees IF they are being demanded ONLY because the contract was broken (by her) and has to be done again. However, I also think the NEW tenant should pay the remaining 1/4, as it's not fair for her to not pay anything at all when you've all had to.

If the fees are some kind of yearly agency fees for the tenants, then she shouldn't have to pay anything after she left - and the fees should cover the period from her departure onwards.

As for the rent, if the new tenant moved in when the other one moved out, then new tenant should pay her rent for the month she has actually lived there.

So. What are the fees for EXACTLY?

I think this reflects my understanding of this thread too.


Why can't the OP explain in clear English exactly what the problem is? (EDIT: And what the fees are for!)


All four people need to agree to pay their fair share of "fees" (whatever they are for) and rent. Why this is difficult for somebody training to be a chartered accountant I have no idea.


Rent isn't being paid (why on earth not?); "fees" haven't been apportioned appropriately; eviction pending; CCJ pending; employer may not be happy.


For God's sake - sort it out!

Manxman_in_exile

libramoon175 wrote: »

i've looked at my original post and nothing has changed. the agency are taking us to court over non-payment of rent. yes there's a lot more to it, but that's the fact. there has been a lot of arguing back and forth over fees but the bottom line is the rent is 14 days late (the outgoing tenant's share,not mine, but we are all jointly liable), and that's what they are taking us to court over.

You are right. The OP only mentioned a "rent" problem, but in later posts you go on about arguments over agency "fees" in which you accept the outgoer agreed to pay 1/4tr of those fees (sounds fair to me) but then later you seem to be saying they haven't paid their due rent either. I don't understand exactly what the problem is. Is it fees or rent or both?


Two days on from OP and are you any further forward?


Imagine you are answering an exam question and are explaining this mess to someone with no prior knowledge.

libramoon175

The problem is both. The girl isn't paying her rent and this is what we are going to be taken to court over. However, it's the arguments about fees that is stopping anyone from moving in and actually getting that rent paid.

libramoon175

I have outlined in a previous post what the breakdown of fees is for.

libramoon175

libramoon175 wrote: »

guys, thanks so much for your responses - going to answer some of the questions here:

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?
- She's not very nice. She wanted to lump as many fees as possible on to the outgoing tenant because she doesn't like her, and thought this would do the trick.

But why aren't you paying your rent?
- I've paid my share, I'm up to date. The outgoing tenant hasn't paid for November, because she says it should have all been sorted by now and the hold ups are nothing to do with her, she says we're dragging our feet and have prevented her from filling the room so therefore we should pay this month's rent, as otherwise she could have filled it and been done with the situation by now.

What are these "fees"?
They are agency fees specifically associated with breaking the tenancy and signing a new lease:
Deposit protection (because the deposit has to be re registered) - Outgoing tenant has agreed to pay
Rental insurance - outgoing tenant has agreed to pay
Referencing- needs to be done again for all tenants - we are paying individually, about £150 each
Agency fees (for the work involved) - this is the contested fee that the remaining tenant told the replacement tenant they wouldn't have to pay, and that the outgoing tenant is refusing to pay. Outgoing tenant has forfeited her deposit and said that needs to cover a portion of the fees and a portion of November's rent, but that she won't cover all of both.

The agency are refusing to proceed until the rent (£600 down) is up to date, and the fees are paid, but now that the replacement tenant is saying they won't pay fees because they weren't informed of them.....nobody is moving.

so for me to rectify the situation i'd not only have to pay the extra fees, approx £290, but I would also have to pay £600 rent before the agency agreed to move forward in the process.

I've outlined the fees here. sorry if i am not explaining it as well as you want. it's a complicated situation as there are no rules on how the fees should be divided. as i have said (repeating myself now) the fees are not the major part of this, it's the missing rent, £600, which the outgoing tenant hasn't paid. we are not being taken to court for the fees (hence why i didn't put it in my original post) but they are part of the reason why we don't have a replacement tenant in yet, because we can't agree on them. don't know how better to explain it i'm afraid.

Comms69

steampowered wrote: »

Are you referring to severance of a 'joint tenancy' in relation to joint ownership of property? If so, that is not the situation here - the Op is faced with joint and several liability in the context of a tenancy agreement. No, I'm referring to when a tenancy become periodic - the fixed term has ended and it's now a rolling agreement. It's now become apparent the OP is still in fixed term, so no longer relevant.

You cannot walk away from a tenancy agreement whenever you wish. I suspect that all of the tenants named on the tenancy agreement will be jointly and severally liable for the rent and fees owed, until such time as the landlord has agreed to release the leaving tenant from the lease. - actually it's not until all parties agree, so the 3 tenants and the LL

If the Op makes a payment to the landlord for which the various tenants are jointly and severally liable (such as November rent), the Op can ask the court to order that the other tenants pay a fair share of that.

I agree, and it would be fairly straight forward in regards rent. - Less so for utilities etc.

FBaby

Your problem is that agreements have been made orally between two of the parties, excluding the other 2 involved in the situation, sharing wrong information and now the two others want to go back to the agreement that was made with the two others on false information. Complete mess!

So we take it that all three named tenants are on the lease? So you are all liable to the fixed term of the contract until it can be amended. However, who pays what is irrelevant to the LL as you signed a lease that mean that the rent of X is due on date Z, whoever pays for it.

So you are your tenant are right that from the perspective of the lease, remains liable to pay (and stay)but what she pays is up to your three, not the LL. You are therefore all correct in that she should pay something, but she could argue that she should only pay £1 that month as she hasn't been present at all.

It then comes down to what your other tenant agreed with her. Did he say that if they found someone, she wouldn't have to pay next month, but did they also added clearly that if that person had not moved on that day, she will continue to have to pay? It's very easy to misinterpret the meaning of 'finding someone'.

It was very unfair of your current tenant to agree anything without your being present on the conversation. Again, it should have been a three way meeting, and then a four way one.

It really old depends on what was said exactly but as it stands, the most likely scenario is that you and your current tenant will bare the grunt of it. Firstly because your flatmate handled the matter badly and made agreement not realising the implication of what they were agreeing, and secondly because ultimately you two have had the benefit of the whole house, so it could be argued that it is right that you should divide the rent for that month in two rather than three.

I think you need to accept the situation and learn from it. You for not inforcing that any agreement be made in your presence, your flatmate for not asking advice before agreeing to anything, then get the new person to move in asap, and an agreement in place between the three of you as to what will happen if one of you leaves before the end of the fixed term (and afterwards).

iammumtoone

Who will be taken to court?

Is there a lead tenant or are you all equally liable so all three of you will be named on the court papers?

If all three have to turn up to court together , I am wondering if a fair Judge will say you are equally liable meaning nothing for you to pay as you have paid your share.

I am confused how it will work as you can't all be given a CCJ for the total amount of £600 as if everyone then paid up, between you, you will have paid too much, maybe someone could explain this? Would the Judge decide how to split the outstanding amount?

Spendless

Gosh, I read this thread a few days ago and got confused. Thanks to the poster who explained (which is what I was thinking).

Surely if one set of fees are charged by someone going and another set of fees are charged by someone coming in they should be paid for the following way:

Eg - If it's a hypothetical £600 (in total) to break the agreement then that should be paid 1/3 rd each by A,B and C each paying £200 each.

If it's a further (hypothetical)£600 to set up a new one with A,B and D then they should also pay 1/3 each.

Meaning A and B who are staying pay £400 each
C leaving pays £200
D coming in pays £200.


The issue of C not paying her rent because of dallying about getting someone new in is a separate issue. This needs paying by someone and then taking the matter to court if need be.

I got a cse grade 2 in maths on both occasions I sat the exam , so someone explain to me if I've got the wrong end of the stick.

Enterprise_1701C

No advice on the rent payment (except perhaps to see if you can come to an agreement with the agent about paying X per month, thereby proving you intend to pay), as for your work well.

If there is a risk that this will lose you your job, get in first and explain the situation, why this is happening. It sounds like the other tenant might write that letter purely out of spite.

If it does go to court you should have a chance to sort it out before a CCJ is issued, the court should ease the way to make an agreement with the agent.