Can I get fired for this?

Comms69

iammumtoone wrote: »

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?

That's not how the law works. The judge can only issue based upon the contract, which is that each person is liable for the full rent / full fee / whatever.


Each person isn't required to pay the full amount, just that the full amount must be paid, whether that's £1, £4 and £595 or whatever.


The key is to stop thinking of these people as individuals. They aren't. They are collectively 'the tenant'

Comms69

Spendless wrote: »

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.

Legally it's not relevant. The fee is owed by 'the tenant' (which is 3 people) anyone of them can be held liable. Or all. Or two of the three.

Manxman_in_exile

FBaby wrote: »

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).

Thank you for this post which explains what I thought was the position more eloquently than I could. I think I may owe the OP an apology - but they could have explained the situation in more detail.


OP - I think the general advice in post #66 from jobbingmusician is sensible. Plus, in future, agree in advance what will happen when one of the joint tenants leaves.


Also post #79 from iammumtoone, is your LL taking action against you all jointly, or just you as lead tenant? I presume you could get the others joined?


Good luck as they may all be resolved by now (hopefully to your satisfaction).


If I were your "people leader" and received a letter from someone I did not know accusing you of not paying rent, I'd either bin it or ask you what it was about. If the latter, you explain what has happened and what you have done to resolve the problem. If you've sorted it out properly, your people leader may be impressed by how you've handled it. (Don't mention resorting to the interweb!)

iammumtoone

Comms69 wrote: »

That's not how the law works. The judge can only issue based upon the contract, which is that each person is liable for the full rent / full fee / whatever.


Each person isn't required to pay the full amount, just that the full amount must be paid, whether that's £1, £4 and £595 or whatever.


The key is to stop thinking of these people as individuals. They aren't. They are collectively 'the tenant'

Yes I understand they need to pay £600 as "the tenant" ie 3 people, its irrelevant which one pays

However what if that £600 isn't paid, who gets issued the CCJ? I can't see how it can go to "the tenant" as that would mean issuing it to three people, at total of £1,800 which isn't right, they owe £600 total. So do they get a CCJ of £200 each? or how does it work?

Spendless

Comms69 wrote: »

Legally it's not relevant. The fee is owed by 'the tenant' (which is 3 people) anyone of them can be held liable. Or all. Or two of the three.

Oh yes, I grasped that but person C the one leaving isn't going to willingly cough up 100% of the exit fees and person D entering isn't going to willingly cough up 100% of the starting fees, which leaves all parties to sort it out somehow between them and the amount concerned. I was just putting forward as a suggestion how they might between them say who should pay what. The person wanting the fees doesn't care how they split it, just that they pay the money owed.

Meanwhile whilst no-one does the OP risks losing her job over it.

Manxman_in_exile

OP - I hope you got this sorted. I think today was a crucial date.


Apologies if I was unduly harsh with earlier posts, but as a trainee accountant you need to be able to find solutions to these situations if you want a career.


Good luck!

[Deleted User]

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.

What ever is happening to your deposit?

When I broke a contract (solely) years ago through early release - the LL agent made it clear I'd never get a penny of the deposit back even after with a replacement tenant so it's a really nasty game. I'm sure in the end that was probably largely what stopped them taking me to court.
It's not something I like remembering all these years later, let alone seriously risk a career in amoungst this anguish.

Comms69

iammumtoone wrote: »

Yes I understand they need to pay £600 as "the tenant" ie 3 people, its irrelevant which one pays

However what if that £600 isn't paid, who gets issued the CCJ? I can't see how it can go to "the tenant" as that would mean issuing it to three people, at total of £1,800 which isn't right, they owe £600 total. So do they get a CCJ of £200 each? or how does it work?

No the CCJ is issued for £600, with 3 named respondents.


It's a joint debt, exactly the same as if you had a joint loan


Once the £600 is paid the CCJ is settled

Comms69

Deleted%20User wrote: »

What ever is happening to your deposit?

When I broke a contract (solely) years ago through early release - the LL agent made it clear I'd never get a penny of the deposit back even after with a replacement tenant so it's a really nasty game. I'm sure in the end that was probably largely what stopped them taking me to court.
It's not something I like remembering all these years later, let alone seriously risk a career in amoungst this anguish.

Each surrender of tenancy is unique (even if in practice it isn't) there's no regulations governing it. In fact in some cases it may be unlawful to retain the deposit.


Remember that a LL is not obliged to agree a surrender and can insist on rent for the duration of the lease

iammumtoone

Comms69 wrote: »

No the CCJ is issued for £600, with 3 named respondents.


It's a joint debt, exactly the same as if you had a joint loan


Once the £600 is paid the CCJ is settled

Thank you I did not realise that a CCJ could be made against more than one person.

What a horrible situation to be in.

OP you really need to find a way to get it paid.