Estate agent didn't remove me from TA

saajan_12

Chris_H123 wrote: »

Thanks Smoothape I do feel it's quite unfair as I did the correct procedures from my part - that's debatable depending on the validity of the notice. Why did you not check your name had been removed or make other arrangements? but my father is also at fault here - he should have paid the rent, yes. Both other than that, did anyone actually tell him to leave? and whilst I feel like the victim if in the eyes of the law I'm liable then I guess I need to face what's given.

If anything this is where maybe the law needs to be reviewed as the LL and EA have far too much power over the tenant ( well in this case).. - how? they're enforcing a contract you both signed. although saying that there are probably alot of decent EAs that would of acted accordingly upon me serving notice.

Chris_H123 wrote: »

Hi There,

Was sent in this direction from the credit rating part of the forum to see if I could get any advice.

I was in a joint tenancy with me father which started in Dec 2015 and was initially a year.- so periodic after that? did the original agreement state anything about notice? If not its SPT, so one full period.

In Feb 2017 I delivered a letter to the estate agent serving notice, - was that serving notice to end the entire tenancy for both of you (-> double rent if you don't both vacate) or just informing them that YOU were moving out (-> legally meaningless)?
he then acknowledged with an email stating "in was in the process of trying to take me off the TA" - doesn't really mean anything as that doesn't suggest it was finally agreed or completed.

Fast forward to the start of 2018 I start to receive calls from the estate agent chasing rent arrears, I pointed out to him that ive not lived at the property for well over a year - physical residence is irrelevant which he acknowledged and that he needs to pursue my father, he stated that I was still on the tenancy agreement - correct. Either as an overstaying tenant or within AST if the notice was invalid. because my father did not have the affordability to live on his own so I was left on. - so there was a possibility of ending the tenancy completely, and then signing a new tenancy wiht just father. However this didn't come to fruition for whatever reason so again irrelevant. I then bombarded him with emails and phonecalls requesting he removes me. - You are legally in the wrong. That's unreasonable behaviour.

Fast forward again to the end of 2018 he calls me and tells me he is going to take my father to court but as I am on the tenancy agreement I will be liable too, - correctI asked him to notify me when the court date is and that I will make my own representation will all the proof I have that id moved out in feb 2017. - that proof would be irrelevant.

At the court case my father did not turn up and I had a file of evidence showing I did not live there ( even an email from the local council) but the judge didn’t want to hear or see any of it and assumed I still lived there. - living there is irrelevant, you were still on the tenancy. That's all that matters.

The Judge issued a CCJ against me and my father and stated I am liable.- Judge is correct. You're both jointly liable, but the LL can choose to collect from you (esp if you have more funds)

My issue is that the estate agent was fully aware and acknowledged in an email that he knew I didn't live at the property and was in the process of trying to remove me from the TA, should me serving notice not lead to the estate agent serving notice on my father as the affordability clearly wasn't there? - No, the LL has no obligation to serve notice, they are receiving rent and two people liable who jointly can afford it

Any advice would be appreciated the situation is becoming extremely stressful for me.

Thank you

Chris

There's two possibilities depending on the wording of your notice:
A) Notice ended the tenancy for both of you
Part of serving notice is ensuring the property is fully vacated. If you expected the tenancy to terminate then where were you in cleaning the property, checkout, getting deposit back? Even if father was signing a new agreement, you should have ensured your tenancy was properly ended.

The reason for this is otherwise tenants could just leave property / animals / other guests. If you don't fully vacate, then there is an impact on the LL, who doesn't know when they can relet the property etc. As far as the LL is concerned, you act on behalf of the Tenant ie you + father jointly so its not up to the LL to then follow up and serve notice. Where is the excess of power here?

Notice informed LL that you alone would be moving out
Nice to know, but legally meaningless. The tenancy continues as usual.

HampshireH

I assume your dad has now been evicted so the tenancy has ended and the CCJ is for the outstanding rent and court fees?

So no chance of future arrears in your name

Chris_H123

HampshireH wrote: »

I assume your dad has now been evicted so the tenancy has ended and the CCJ is for the outstanding rent and court fees?

So no chance of future arrears in your name

Yes correct.

I went to the court today to get a copy of the court order, I was in fact wrong and no CCJ has been issued.

The order was for -

1) Possession of the flat
2) Judgement order to pay arrears - this is what I thought the CCJ was but the court today me today it isnt and its a order that a payment schedule needs to be set up with the LL and tenants for the arrears, if this isnt done then next steps are enforcement /CCJ.
3) Deposit paid to LL.

So my next steps are to obviously get this arrangement set in place with the LL.

walka

I believe that one person properly serving notice in a periodic joint tenancy ends the tenancy for all after the required notice period.

The alternative is that someone could be trapped forever unable to escape a tenancy which would be absurd.

AFAIK any people remaining in the property are treated as people who have remained on after serving notice to quit. Any people who have moved out have no further liability.

As the shelter website says:

"If you don't have a fixed-term tenancy or it has ended and not been renewed, you or any other joint tenant can end the tenancy by giving a valid notice to quit to the landlord.

You can do this with or without the agreement of the other joint tenants. The tenancy ends for all the joint tenants.

When the notice to quit expires none of you has the right to continue living there."

ThePants999

Pixie5740 wrote: »

There was a clue in the Shelter advice you posted.

Sure, but I don't think it's at all obvious that one tenant continuing to live there when they have no right to means that all the OTHER tenants are also doing something wrong. I'm not saying you're wrong, especially since G_M agrees with you, but if you are right then the law SUCKS - it means that if you sign a joint tenancy, you have absolutely no way of getting out of it if at least one other tenant doesn't want to end it. How can that be a sensible system?

G_M

ThePants999 wrote: »

Sure, but I don't think it's at all obvious that one tenant continuing to live there when they have no right to means that all the OTHER tenants are also doing something wrong. I'm not saying you're wrong, especially since G_M agrees with you, but if you are right then the law SUCKS - it means that if you sign a joint tenancy, you have absolutely no way of getting out of it if at least one other tenant doesn't want to end it. How can that be a sensible system?

Because there are two legal Parties in a tenancy contract:

1) 'The Landlord' (which may be a company; an individual; two or more individuals; a trust [run by 1, 2 or more Trustees]) and
2) 'The Tenant' (which may be..... see above!)

Any contractually valid change to the contract (including its termination) binds both Parties (and therefore all the componant parts). Any breach by one Party to the contract terms (including failure to vacate) makes that Party (including all the componant parts) liable.

The same principle works in reverse:

Say for example the property was jointly owned by 2 brothers, one of whom ran the letting, and one just invested some money and was a 'sleeping partner'. If 'The Landlord' breached the contract (eg failed to protect the deposit) and the active brother had no money to pay the penalty, or disappered overseas, the Tenant could claim the penalty off the 'sleeping partner' whocould not escape by saying "but I had no control over what my brother did or did not do".


Signing a joint contract binds you together, as does a marriage, a joint bank account, a joint property purchase, a joint business venture (albeit all in slightly different ways).

saajan_12

ThePants999 wrote: »

Sure, but I don't think it's at all obvious that one tenant continuing to live there when they have no right to means that all the OTHER tenants are also doing something wrong.

Why not? The resident tenant is only wrong if another tenant served notice. That notice is to the LL saying they will vacate by x date. That means the WHOLE property must be emptied of people, pets, belongings, everything. The tenant who served notice FAILED to return vacant possession.

What if the named tenant served notice and moved but left a penniless vulnerable relative / child / guest who was staying with them but not named on the tenancy and has no legal liability to pay rent. Its not the LL's responsibility to pick through, and spend months evicting with all the court costs and lost rent for 6+ months.. The LL contracted with the Tenant as a unit, and that unit is responsible for everything.

ThePants999 wrote: »

but if you are right then the law SUCKS - it means that if you sign a joint tenancy, you have absolutely no way of getting out of it if at least one other tenant doesn't want to end it. How can that be a sensible system?

That's the definition of a joint tenancy.. both people jointly form one unit, called the Tenant. One part of The Tenant is jointly liable for what the other part of The Tenant does in relation to obligations under the tenancy.

If there were 2 people who jointly formed The Landlord.. or 75 people.. should you as tenant be expected to consult each one of them? What if one person from the Landlord serves notice on you but the other wants you to stay and keep paying rent..

Murphybear

Chris_H123 wrote: »

Thanks Smoothape I do feel it's quite unfair as I did the correct procedures from my part but my father is also at fault here and whilst I feel like the victim if in the eyes of the law I'm liable then I guess I need to face what's given.

If anything this is where maybe the law needs to be reviewed as the LL and EA have far too much power over the tenant ( well in this case).. although saying that there are probably alot of decent EAs that would of acted accordingly upon me serving notice.

Just to keep the balance I have asked for advice on housing issues a number of times including a major problem last year. People were really kind and very helpful. . My research showed that the advice was correct.

walka

I still believe that the OP is not liable for any rent/mesne profits after the expiry of their notice assuming it was valid.

This issue has come up before on other sites.

I think we are all agreed that one person's notice ends the tenancy for all. The question is do people who have moved out have any subsequent liability if some people remain?

I don't think they do. A person can't be tied into a contract indefinitely against their will.

Draper v. Crofts and Bartlett. 1846:
"Where there is a demise to A. and B. for a term, and B. holds over after the expiration of the term, without A.'s assent, A. is not liable for rent becoming due during the such holding over".