ending a joint tenancy agreement question

Comms69

trusaiyan wrote: »

Because currently it is unclear which is correct as the professional advice - from who, you aren't saying where you got this advice from? doesn't correspond with the legislation that's been posted in this thread. I am not arguing for the sake of it, but of course he wants to know which is correct. - well I suggest he gets a refund because he's literally paid to be lied to.

It has been stated on here that because one of them remains, the joint tenancy did not end, but this may be totally false and it did end with his notice. - Well you can always risk it in court. Did this professional advice come with an indemnity?

This is an important matter of law and its in the public interest for this to be known. - it's been the law for almost 300 years... I appreciate the advice given here as always (I use MSE alot but rarely post).

I will post any further professional advice here once received for anyone interested. He has requested the relevant parts of legislation which formed their opinion.

Was this a solicitor specialising in tenancy law. Otherwise I'd be concerns about someone charging for legal advice without the relevant qualification

trusaiyan

Comms69 wrote: »

NO. They are liable for double rent. All the landlord has to do is let it build up and then take it to court.


I don't know who the advice is from. However what you do have is the actual legislation provided by G_M. It literally is what the law says

But the landlord has accepted that one tenant has left and the other remains. They have confirmed this in emails.

Comms69

trusaiyan wrote: »

But the landlord has accepted that one tenant has left and the other remains. They have confirmed this in emails.

No the landlord has acknowledged that one person has vacated.


That isn't up for dispute.


Look, ultimately this ends up in court. I would put handsome money on the court finding for the landlord - but I wouldn't make that bet as I doubt the tenants would have anything left after the paying of the court order

[Deleted User]

trusaiyan wrote: »

But the landlord has accepted that one tenant has left and the other remains. They have confirmed this in emails.

I will reiterate that legally joint tenants are one legal entity. That’s why it only takes notice from one and all must vacate.

trusaiyan

I don't accept for a second that the courts would honour a claim for double rent in this circumstance when the LL and EA have explicitly accepted that one tenant remains and the other leaves in writing. Any case law where this has occured?

Surely it could be argued that they have either accepted a new tenancy with her remaining as the sole tenant. They are taking her rent and fully accept this in writing, and they accept the other tenant wanted to leave and left within his notice.

Although this is regarding commercial leases I guess the principles would remain (from Nelsons Law):

"For a landlord to lawfully claim double rent, they must treat the tenant as a trespasser and not act in a way that would deem to be seen as the tenancy still continuing.

Additionally, the landlord must not accept the previously agreed and paid rental amount from the tenant once the commercial lease has expired. If they do, then they will not be able to claim double rent."

The EA/LL are not in any capacity disputing the situation, and not in any capacity asking her to leave for trespassing/not vacating. On the contrary, they want her to stay and keep paying the rent and council tax! It would be fundamentally ridiculous for them to try and charge double rent when they are accepting her payments and making no demands for her to leave.

Furthermore, Hewitsons state in regards to the Double Rent issue:

"Section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1730 entitles the landlord to claim against his tenant double the yearly value of the premises during the period of holding over. This applies in a situation where the landlord has demanded possession in writing but the tenant wilfully remains in occupation as a trespasser.

The 1730 Act applies to any tenancies that runs from year to year as well as to fixed term tenancies. However, the Act does not apply to weekly tenancies and possibly tenancies from month to month or quarter to quarter."

She has never received any demand to leave due to trespass/failure to vacate, and she was on a month to month periodic tenancy...

Comms69

trusaiyan wrote: »

I don't accept for a second that the courts would honour a claim for double rent in this circumstance when the LL and EA have explicitly accepted that one tenant remains and the other leaves in writing. Any case law where this has occured? - What do you mean accepts. He left. It's just a fact. It's like saying the landlord accepts he works at Barclays (or wherever) it's just a fact that has happened. A tenancy begins when you take possession and ends when you return it, that is the law. Double rent has existed for 300 years, so there'll be plenty of case law. There is legally one tenant, it's two people. The tenant remains in situ, it's that simple

Surely it could be argued that they have either accepted a new tenancy with her remaining as the sole tenant. - You can argue the sky is purple if you like, but it's not the reality. They are taking her rent and fully accept this in writing - in joint tenancies all individuals are liable for the full rent. So they are accepting rent from the tenant, exactly like they have since they moved in , and they accept the other tenant wanted to leave and left within his notice. - you keep saying accepted, they accept the fact he has left; that has no legal meaning

Although this is regarding commercial leases I guess the principles would remain (from Nelsons Law):

"For a landlord to lawfully claim double rent, they must treat the tenant as a trespasser and not act in a way that would deem to be seen as the tenancy still continuing.

Additionally, the landlord must not accept the previously agreed and paid rental amount from the tenant once the commercial lease has expired. If they do, then they will not be able to claim double rent."



In commercial tenancies the tenant can be a trespasser, in domestic they cannot.

The EA/LL are not in any capacity disputing the situation, and not in any capacity asking her to leave for trespassing/not vacating. - nor could they legally do so, as to do so would constitute an illegal eviction. a criminal offence On the contrary, they want her to stay and keep paying the rent and council tax! - no doubt they do. It would be fundamentally ridiculous for them to try and charge double rent when they are accepting her payments and making no demands for her to leave.

You've had all the advice you will get here. (well all the correct advice). The next step will be to argue it in court as ultimately that is where it will go if or when things go bad

[Deleted User]

trusaiyan wrote: »

I don't accept for a second that the courts would honour a claim for double rent in this circumstance when the LL and EA have explicitly accepted that one tenant remains and the other leaves in writing. Any case law where this has occured?

Surely it could be argued that they have either accepted a new tenancy with her remaining as the sole tenant. They are taking her rent and fully accept this in writing, and they accept the other tenant wanted to leave and left within his notice.

Although this is regarding commercial leases I guess the principles would remain (from Nelsons Law):

"For a landlord to lawfully claim double rent, they must treat the tenant as a trespasser and not act in a way that would deem to be seen as the tenancy still continuing.

Additionally, the landlord must not accept the previously agreed and paid rental amount from the tenant once the commercial lease has expired. If they do, then they will not be able to claim double rent."

The EA/LL are not in any capacity disputing the situation, and not in any capacity asking her to leave for trespassing/not vacating. On the contrary, they want her to stay and keep paying the rent and council tax! It would be fundamentally ridiculous for them to try and charge double rent when they are accepting her payments and making no demands for her to leave.

Furthermore, Hewitsons state in regards to the Double Rent issue:

Section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1730 entitles the landlord to claim against his tenant double the yearly value of the premises during the period of holding over. This applies in a situation where the landlord has demanded possession in writing but the tenant wilfully remains in occupation as a trespasser.

The 1730 Act applies to any tenancies that runs from year to year as well as to fixed term tenancies. However, the Act does not apply to weekly tenancies and possibly tenancies from month to month or quarter to quarter.

She has never received any demand to leave due to trespass/failure to vacate, and she was on a month to month periodic tenancy...

Why are you getting your knickers in such a twist about this and what are you not grasping about joint and several liability of a joint tenancy? Rather than quoting various sources from the internet, and no commercial tenancy law is not applicable to an AST, just read the actual legislation, you've been given the links to it.

Comms69

trusaiyan wrote: »

I don't accept for a second that the courts would honour a claim for double rent in this circumstance when the LL and EA have explicitly accepted that one tenant remains and the other leaves in writing. Any case law where this has occured?

Surely it could be argued that they have either accepted a new tenancy with her remaining as the sole tenant. They are taking her rent and fully accept this in writing, and they accept the other tenant wanted to leave and left within his notice.

Although this is regarding commercial leases I guess the principles would remain (from Nelsons Law):

"For a landlord to lawfully claim double rent, they must treat the tenant as a trespasser and not act in a way that would deem to be seen as the tenancy still continuing.

Additionally, the landlord must not accept the previously agreed and paid rental amount from the tenant once the commercial lease has expired. If they do, then they will not be able to claim double rent."

The EA/LL are not in any capacity disputing the situation, and not in any capacity asking her to leave for trespassing/not vacating. On the contrary, they want her to stay and keep paying the rent and council tax! It would be fundamentally ridiculous for them to try and charge double rent when they are accepting her payments and making no demands for her to leave.

Furthermore, Hewitsons state in regards to the Double Rent issue:

"Section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1730 entitles the landlord to claim against his tenant double the yearly value of the premises during the period of holding over. This applies in a situation where the landlord has demanded possession in writing but the tenant wilfully remains in occupation as a trespasser.

The 1730 Act applies to any tenancies that runs from year to year as well as to fixed term tenancies. However, the Act does not apply to weekly tenancies and possibly tenancies from month to month or quarter to quarter."

She has never received any demand to leave due to trespass/failure to vacate, and she was on a month to month periodic tenancy...

That is the wrong law. The 1730 act is (in effect no longer valid) when the landlord serves notice. Distress of rent 1737.


Hewitsons are presenting an opinion in anycase.

trusaiyan

I appreciate the comments. From Druces:

"Landlords should ensure that recovery of double value or double rent from their tenants in the circumstances outlined above is carried out hand in hand with the process of obtaining vacant possession of the premises. If the tenant remains in possession of the premise following expiry of the tenancy and the landlord accepts rent from the tenant in respect of the tenant’s occupation without taking steps to obtain vacant possession, a new periodic tenancy could be created, entitling the tenant to remain in occupation of the premises on the terms of the new periodic tenancy and, potentially, subject to the security of tenure provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954."

So my point that it is possible a new perdiodic tenancy has began is probably correct. And because they haven't tried to take possession of the property in any capacity (on the contrary they want her to stay), any claim for Double Rent would be void it seems (as it should be as that is ridiculous in the circumstances).

Even if this is principally concerning business contracts, would the principles not hold for residential?

And secondly, is there any case law where they have been successful passing double rent in the circumstances outlined above?

Thanks

[Deleted User]

trusaiyan wrote: »

I appreciate the comments. From Druces:

"Landlords should ensure that recovery of double value or double rent from their tenants in the circumstances outlined above is carried out hand in hand with the process of obtaining vacant possession of the premises. If the tenant remains in possession of the premise following expiry of the tenancy and the landlord accepts rent from the tenant in respect of the tenant’s occupation without taking steps to obtain vacant possession, a new periodic tenancy could be created, entitling the tenant to remain in occupation of the premises on the terms of the new periodic tenancy and, potentially, subject to the security of tenure provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954."

So my point that it is possible a new perdiodic tenancy has began is probably correct. And because they haven't tried to take possession of the property in any capacity (on the contrary they want her to stay), any claim for Double Rent would be void it seems (as it should be as that is ridiculous in the circumstances).

Even if this is principally concerning business contracts, would the principles not hold for residential?

And secondly, is there any case law where they have been successful passing double rent in the circumstances outlined above?

Thanks

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: