Who pays rent in student house when one student is evicted

theartfullodger

Sounds like very likely illegal eviction.  The remaining two occupants and you should do all you can asap to get shot of this property & landlord.

TripleH

Think it's 6 other students (Inc. The Op's 2 children).

It might be harder to find somewhere this late on in the year depending on the area they are in that could be as close to student life other than the less selective properties especially that might take 2 students.

theartfullodger

Suggest tenants (rather than parent) speak about this to university "accommodation office" - or similar name & Shelter helpline 0808 800 4444 . It's a legal minefield.

doodling

Hi,

I think there are several issues here.

1. The tenant who has left and their right to return.  I think that at present (as the tenancy has not come to an end), the tenant who has left has a right to return at any time (subject to any other legal restraints).

2. The sharing of the rent.  This is not the landlords problem but the [collective tenant]'s (i.e. the group of people named on the tenancy agreement).  That group of people need to ensure that the whole rent is paid between them, otherwise the landlord can pursue both them (individually - one, some or all) and their guarantors (again individually, one, some or all).

3. The relationship between the tenant who has left and the other members of the [collective tenant].  There is an implied agreement between those people as to how rent will be shared.

There are a number of approaches:

A. Any member of the [collective tenant] can give notices regarding the tenancy.  I suspect that it would be possible for a member of the [collective tenant] to agree a mutual surrender of the tenancy with the landlord on the basis that a new tenancy would come into effect excluding the tenant who has left.  Doing this would require the commitment of all those who are to remain to enter into that tenancy i.e. become [collective tenant 2] - if they don't sign that new tenancy after the surrender is agreed then all kinds of issues arise, including the possibility that double rent is due.  This approach is only possible if the tenant who has left has actually and fully moved out (otherwise, again, all kinds of issues arise, including the possibility that double rent is due).  Presumably the landlord would only agree to that if they still received the whole agreed rent from [collective tenant 2].

B. Unless another person is found to form part of [collective tenant 2], then it will be necessary for the members of that collective to agree how the shortfall is shared between them going forwards.  It may be possible to argue that the group agreed to share the rent and therefore members of that group not pulling their weight could be sued - I think legal action would be very messy, especially remembering that only the tenants could be sued (who might not have much money), not their guarantors (the guarantee being to the landlord, not the other tenants).

C. It might be possible to drag the landlord into the argument between tenants as to how the shortfall arising out of the loss of one of the tenants is handled.  For example, if the rent was short because some of the group of 6 people paid 1/6 but some paid 1/7 then the landlord could choose to pursue only those paying 1/7 (or their guarantors) for the shortfall.  The landlord may or may not want to be drawn into that - they could alternatively, for example, look at the list of all guarantors addresses and sue the one which looked like they had the nicest house on the basis that they may be more likely to pay up.

D. It is possible that the other members of [collective tenant] can pursue the tenant who has left for some of their losses on the same basis as described in [B].  The problem they may have is that the obvious way of mitigating those losses is for the tenant who has left to return and pay rent - they probably don't want this.

Note:  I'm not a lawyer - what I've said, particularly in point (A) above carries some risks so you might want to get some advice as to whether I'm right!  Most of the risks are to the landlord regarding the potential illegal eviction (and I'm not sure how that works for joint tenancies), but by doing what I've described in (A) the other tenants are making the tenant who has left homeless and the courts can dislike homelessness being inflicted on people.  It would be better all round if the tenant who has left can be encouraged into writing a letter to the rest of [collective tenant] (and ideally a separate letter saying the same thing to the landlord) stating that they have left, have taken all their stuff and have no plans to return.

tooldle

Student union Advice and Support Centre would be the place to take this query. Their legal advisors will be well versed in these situations. 

MumOfTwoStudents

doodling said:

Hi,

I think there are several issues here.

1. The tenant who has left and their right to return.  I think that at present (as the tenancy has not come to an end), the tenant who has left has a right to return at any time (subject to any other legal restraints).

2. The sharing of the rent.  This is not the landlords problem but the [collective tenant]'s (i.e. the group of people named on the tenancy agreement).  That group of people need to ensure that the whole rent is paid between them, otherwise the landlord can pursue both them (individually - one, some or all) and their guarantors (again individually, one, some or all).

3. The relationship between the tenant who has left and the other members of the [collective tenant].  There is an implied agreement between those people as to how rent will be shared.

There are a number of approaches:

A. Any member of the [collective tenant] can give notices regarding the tenancy.  I suspect that it would be possible for a member of the [collective tenant] to agree a mutual surrender of the tenancy with the landlord on the basis that a new tenancy would come into effect excluding the tenant who has left.  Doing this would require the commitment of all those who are to remain to enter into that tenancy i.e. become [collective tenant 2] - if they don't sign that new tenancy after the surrender is agreed then all kinds of issues arise, including the possibility that double rent is due.  This approach is only possible if the tenant who has left has actually and fully moved out (otherwise, again, all kinds of issues arise, including the possibility that double rent is due).  Presumably the landlord would only agree to that if they still received the whole agreed rent from [collective tenant 2].

B. Unless another person is found to form part of [collective tenant 2], then it will be necessary for the members of that collective to agree how the shortfall is shared between them going forwards.  It may be possible to argue that the group agreed to share the rent and therefore members of that group not pulling their weight could be sued - I think legal action would be very messy, especially remembering that only the tenants could be sued (who might not have much money), not their guarantors (the guarantee being to the landlord, not the other tenants).

C. It might be possible to drag the landlord into the argument between tenants as to how the shortfall arising out of the loss of one of the tenants is handled.  For example, if the rent was short because some of the group of 6 people paid 1/6 but some paid 1/7 then the landlord could choose to pursue only those paying 1/7 (or their guarantors) for the shortfall.  The landlord may or may not want to be drawn into that - they could alternatively, for example, look at the list of all guarantors addresses and sue the one which looked like they had the nicest house on the basis that they may be more likely to pay up.

D. It is possible that the other members of [collective tenant] can pursue the tenant who has left for some of their losses on the same basis as described in [B].  The problem they may have is that the obvious way of mitigating those losses is for the tenant who has left to return and pay rent - they probably don't want this.

Note:  I'm not a lawyer - what I've said, particularly in point (A) above carries some risks so you might want to get some advice as to whether I'm right!  Most of the risks are to the landlord regarding the potential illegal eviction (and I'm not sure how that works for joint tenancies), but by doing what I've described in (A) the other tenants are making the tenant who has left homeless and the courts can dislike homelessness being inflicted on people.  It would be better all round if the tenant who has left can be encouraged into writing a letter to the rest of [collective tenant] (and ideally a separate letter saying the same thing to the landlord) stating that they have left, have taken all their stuff and have no plans to return.

Thank you so much for this. At the moment I have no clue as to what to do so it’s really helpful to hear some ideas to explore and the possible implications. 

MumOfTwoStudents

[Deleted User] said:

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.

The guarantor agreement states I’m liable for everything the student is and yes it’s a joint tenancy. All 7 named on one agreement. 

As you say. I didn’t see the AST and I don’t think it was witnessed 

MumOfTwoStudents

canaldumidi said:

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.

Yes the rent is for the whole building and all 7 tenants are named on one agreement. 

Unfortunately nothing there limiting liability to a share. Even though I’m only assessed as being able to afford only their share. 

Stupid agreement. 

MumOfTwoStudents

theartfullodger said:

Sounds like very likely illegal eviction.  The remaining two occupants and you should do all you can asap to get shot of this property & landlord.

I think we are stuck. But this is the best idea. 

MumOfTwoStudents

Soot2006 said:

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.

I hope you’re right. I’ll look into this. Thank you.