Who pays rent in student house when one student is evicted

[Deleted User]

MumOfTwoStudents said:

rexmedorum said:

MumOfTwoStudents said:

elsien said:

7 tenants all on one joint tenancy? 

Just to check are they in England or another part of the UK? 

Are you sure it’s a joint AST and not set up as an HMO? 

In England. It’s an HMO but I assumed the tenancy was an AST? It says AST on the tenancy agreement. 

Wait is it set up as a HMO, (everybody their own contract) or not (one contract with all names on it)?

Do not just assume but check the contracts because these details make a big difference and any advice you get on the wrong assumption may well be wide off the mark!

It is registered as an HMO on the
council's website. 

The tenancy agreement is an assured short hold tenancy. It says that right at the top. 

Is something amiss here? 

There is nothing in this. HMOs (House in multple occupation) can be either individual contracts or joint tenancy, either of which could be an AST.

I think it has already been said by you, if the headline rent figure is for thousands, then this is to say that each tenant and every tenant is legally responsible for seeing the landlord recieve all the rent. The landlord could sue all, some or just 1 tenant or guarantor in an arrears situation. It is not the landlord's concern with such a contract, as to who pays what for the box room, or ensuite etc - there is simply no such definitive figure. So to my mind your guarantor agreement is either to underwite the lot, or in very many cases with be botched anyway (unwitnessed, AST not provided).  And, to the contrary the tenancy agreement would be crystal clear if it is room only, and your child's rent would be their indiviudal amount.

canaldumidi

I know you've been asked before, and sort of answered, but this is really critical to understanding the law, and the responsibilities of the tenants and yourself. So

A

* is the AST your children signed a single tenancy for the whole property?

* on the tenancy agreement, how many names are there listed as 'The Tenant'?

* is the rent specified the total for the entire building?

OR

B

* are there separate AST's signed by each tenant?

* is there just a single name listed as 'The Tenant' on (each) agreement?

* is the rent specified just the amount for one tenant ie 1/7th of the total rent forthe property?

If A is true, then ALL the tenants are equally liable for ALL the rent.

If B is true, then each tenant is only liable for their OWN rent

As for the guarantor's (your) liability, that depends on the exact wording of the guarantee agreement you signed. But it is usual for the G to be liable for anything 'The Tenant' is liable for (whether rent or damage etc). So

If A above is true, you would be liable for the total rent for the property (well, any arrears that is)

If B above is true, you would only be liable for your children's rent.

Having said that it is possible, though less common, for the guarantee agreement to limit your liability in some way eg to your own children's 'share' - but there are legal complexities with this which make it less common.

Quoting the wording on the guarantee agreement here would enable us to explain it to you.

MaryNB

rexmedorum said:

MumOfTwoStudents said:

elsien said:

7 tenants all on one joint tenancy? 

Just to check are they in England or another part of the UK? 

Are you sure it’s a joint AST and not set up as an HMO? 

In England. It’s an HMO but I assumed the tenancy was an AST? It says AST on the tenancy agreement. 

Wait is it set up as a HMO, (everybody their own contract) or not (one contract with all names on it)?

Do not just assume but check the contracts because these details make a big difference and any advice you get on the wrong assumption may well be wide off the mark!

This is incorrect. As long as there are 3 or more people forming more than one household it's a HMO, 5 or more make a large HMO. A joint tenancy doesn't change that, a joint tenancy does not create a household. OP's children are on a joint tenancy with their housemates and they form a large HMO.

The Housing Act considers a household to consist of relatives, people living as a couple, or people like carers who have to live with the people they care for. It does not take into account joint tenancies when considering households. 

elsien

[Deleted User] said:

MumOfTwoStudents said:

[Deleted User] said:

Help get someone in to replace the tenant by advertising the room asap. In general you are wise to stop and consider your overall liability but this is not a disaster. It's a standard situation. Get a new tenant and its fixed.

Once things are settled, sit down with a cuppa and ponder why being part of joint and several liability for thousands as a tenant or guarantor is unwise (although not uncommon I suppose).

Call me naive but since thousands of people are in this situation and presumably have no problems and there are few alternatives for students needing accommodation in a big university city I really didn’t read the tenancy agreement or guarantor agreement in this way it isn’t explicit anywhere about this type of responsibility and what it means. If thousands of people do this every year for their kids then why should I worry? 

I also didn’t expect my kids to be assaulted in this way by a friend they trusted. 

In fact I don’t earn enough to guarantee for the whole rent. Only that of my two which I’m prepared for. Why would I think that I could be liable for the whole rent for all 7? 

I won’t be doing it again. It’s ridiculous. Next year they get a two bedroomed place. 

As long as someone takes the room soon (and pays - we already had a rubbish payer as well as on the agreement before this issue) of course, it’s fine. I’m just trying to work out my worst case scenario. 

Like I said, replace the tenant and don't worry. Speak to the landlord who will clarify. If he demands full rent, presumably that is a 1/6 share from each tenant, and presumably a new tenant can be found within a month.

I wouldn't call you naive at all, but you don't have to look far on this forum to see how these arrangements can be problematic. 

Room only contracts is a better way, and where finances permit - a two bedroom.

If it’s a joint tenancy, then as already explained the tenant cannot be replaced just like that without the agreement of all parties. Including the awol tenant. 

I’m not understanding why the LL is saying they can’t chase the person or the guarantor for the rent. They won’t be liable once current tenancy is ended, but they are right up to that point and could be chased for those if the LL is so inclined. 

Maybe they’ve clocked the strife they could get into over an illegal eviction? 

Soot2006

elsien said:

I’m not understanding why the LL is saying they can’t chase the person or the guarantor for the rent. They won’t be liable once current tenancy is ended, but they are right up to that point and could be chased for those if the LL is so inclined. 

Maybe they’ve clocked the stride they could get into over an illegal eviction? 

LL asked the tenant to leave. Tenant left. Could be a considered a mutual surrender. But that only works if the entire tenancy is surrendered. So LL seems to be keeping low profile. They can't ask someone they've illegally kicked out for rent. Equally, if the entire tenancy was effectively surrendered, then everyone else should leave too. Which also doesn't seem to be the desired outcome.   If LL has half a brain, she will accept her losses while the room is re-advertised, and perhaps consider using individual contracts in the future.

caprikid1

MalMonroe said:

My daughter was in a shared house when she was at Uni. She shared with three others. They each had a separate and official signed agreement with the landlord. Their rent was the same and they shared all bills equally - gas, electricity, water, phone. If one of them had left, for whatever reason, they would NOT have had to pay that person's rent.  

Your two children don't have to pay a penny either and you have no need to worry. The landlord has evicted one of the tenants and now they have to get someone else in to fill that space. 

In shared houses, each tenant has - or should have (even your two children should have their own) a separate agreement. So if one leaves, for whatever reason, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the other tenants. Other tenants' rent agreements have absolutely nothing to do with you. Or your children. 

A landlord will normally, to make things easier if possible, ask the tenants who are still in the property if they know of anyone who may want to move in. With students, there often is someone seeking alternative accommodation and it's better if they know who they're moving in with too.  

The landlord cannot make you pay rent for someone they have actually asked to leave. Or if someone has given the appropriate notice and moved out of their own volition. Or indeed if anyone defaults on their rent. It's not the other tenants' responsibility, it's the landlord's.

Unless you have specifically agreed to pay someone else's rent when they have been ousted or if they default, you really don't have anything to worry about. 

You said " We have to rely on all of them to pay their share of this tenants rent. If it was just my two then I’d just get on with it as I’m going to as guarantor." But it isn't up to other tenants or you to pay a share of another tenant's rent unless you have signed a contract to that effect. 

You are acting as a guarantor simply for your own two children, in case they fail to pay. You are not responsible for anybody else in that house. Unless, as I say, you have signed to that effect.

You also say "Still it seems that we are all treat as someone who hasn’t paid even if we pay our share. The landlord can chase the one who is the easiest target and the others get off Scott free if we’re the only ones who care about our credit rating and integrity so find a way to pay more then our share."

Where is the written agreement you have signed? Because the landlord really cannot chase anyone else for the missing rent. If you have paid anything towards someone else's rent, then you must try to get it refunded.

Have you actually spoken to the landlord about any of this? Because it sounds as if you need to do so without delay.

I think you also need to speak to the Uni's accommodation department without delay. Hopefully they can help you to deal with the landlord. Just because your children and the other tenants are not renting from the uni accommodation office doesn't mean that they cannot help. Also try student services. 

If the landlord is new to this, then she needs to quickly bring herself up to date with the law on renting to students. Otherwise she may well find herself in court. 

Sorry this is long but please don't let this person bully you into paying for someone SHE has ousted. 

It's good you took the time to reply but so much of what you state is based on your experience of a couple of agreements, it is extremely common for shared student houses to be let as a single house with liability on the rest to pay the rent. 

Much of what you state is categorically wrong.

saajan_12

Some wishful advice here, but not actually correct. 
Legal setup:
- If the 7 kids have a joint & several tenancy, they they are all liable for 100% of the rent.
- As guarantor of your 2 kids' obligations, you're liable for 100% of the rent by default, unless there's an explicit limitation of your liability.
- One person cannot be legally evicted (its all or none) and in any case only a court can evict, not a LL asking. 

Practically, if no one makes an issue of it, then it doesn't really matter. Eg if the co-tenant is happy to stay away, a replacement found who is a lodger of the remaining 6, and pays 1/7 of the rent. Or if no replacement found but the co-tenants agree to absorb the share of rent to avoid the one coming back. 

However if anyone insists on enforcing the contract, then the departed tenant has every right to return or the LL could claim rent from any of the co-tenants and leave them to chase up the departed tenant. 

TripleH

Has this 'individual' been evicted though?

What we know is

that the landlord asked them to leave

that the individual has left

These events may well be related, but it may be the individual wasn't aware of their rights and might come back (and cause issues down the line when they do become aware).

Although I did read (or misread) that the courts had taken action limiting the individual's right to access the property?

If the landlord does come chasing for rent, I would argue (however valid it might be) that it was the landlord themselves who 'removed' this person and created the shortfall. Two wrongs don't make a right but I suspect arguing the landlord's illegal eviction created the liability might pressure her not to pursue 'that debt'?

elsien

Bail condition. Which may be removed as and when a decision about prosecution is made. 

TripleH

Cheers elsien, I knew I had read something.