Housemate won't pay rent!

mark55man

it seems to me the landlord is avoiding HMO regulations and you have enabled him in that by signing up to a 2 people contract and then subletting - I would just find another lodger ASAP, maybe someone who appreciates the flexibility of being a lodger and not a tenant.  My DD found a number of replacements in the 3 years at Uni, its not that hard as people do want to move for the same reason that your departing housemate may have had.  I believe there is likely to be some hardball move you could make given your LL's deceit (Council Mortgage Company) circumstances but you would need to be very sure of it and you would need to expect a difficult time 

But be careful as I understand it the LL can enforce end of tenancy arrangements against you but you cannot include third parties.  If my DD experience is anything to go by you will end up losing a chunk of the deposit no matter how hard you try

canaldumidi

caitlin99 said:

andy444 said:

Why could only two people be on the contract? Presumably there are three bedrooms in the property. This doesn't make sense. Have you seen anything in writing to confirm this?

Did the leaving housemate pay rent directly to the landlord or to yourself and the other housemate?

The leaving housemate paid rent each month to the third housemate who paid directly to the landlord and the property has 3 bedrooms and we each pay our bills separately to an outside company so the landlord is aware of the fact there are 3 people residing in the property as they have been communicating with the leaving housemate. The letting agency said the property was a "family property" therefore only 2 people could be on the contract

The fact that the leaving housemate paid rent to the third housemate, not the ultimate landlord, confirms what saajan said earlier: The leaving housemate is (was) a lodger, not a tenant. His landlord was the third housemate to whom he paid rent.

Whether you/third housemate can demand the leaving tenant continue to pay you rent, perhaps for a notice period or perhaps for the year, depends on the agreement you had. Since I suspect this was oral (yes?) it will be hard to prove, though it might be possible to claim there was a fixed term agreement for the academic year.

If the leaving tenant fails to pay you two the rent he oews, you could sue via the small claims court.

But as for your contract with the landlord, that seems clear - you owe the full rent for the property irrespective of whether you receive 1/3rd of it from the lodger (or a replacement lodger) or not.

However, the LL was clearly trying to avoid creating an HMO (3+ tenants). If the property is in an area of compulsory HMO registration, he (the LL) might be willing to reduce the rent temporarily rather than have the council asking him awkward questions.

There again, he might not care, given he can say: "Look - here's the tenancy agreement with just 2 names. And look, there are only 2 people living there....".

pinkshoes

The person leaving was clearly your lodger and not a tenant.

Can you find another lodger ASAP?

The LL only wants 2 people on the tenancy as otherwise he would have to meet regulations for an HMO! He is being rather cheeky doing this. Was it hi suggestion to have the 3rd person as a lodger paying rent to one of the main tenants? As this way the LL isn't even seen to be having 3 tenants!

[Deleted User]

canaldumidi said:

caitlin99 said:

andy444 said:

Why could only two people be on the contract? Presumably there are three bedrooms in the property. This doesn't make sense. Have you seen anything in writing to confirm this?

Did the leaving housemate pay rent directly to the landlord or to yourself and the other housemate?

The leaving housemate paid rent each month to the third housemate who paid directly to the landlord and the property has 3 bedrooms and we each pay our bills separately to an outside company so the landlord is aware of the fact there are 3 people residing in the property as they have been communicating with the leaving housemate. The letting agency said the property was a "family property" therefore only 2 people could be on the contract

The fact that the leaving housemate paid rent to the third housemate, not the ultimate landlord, confirms what saajan said earlier: The leaving housemate is (was) a lodger, not a tenant. His landlord was the third housemate to whom he paid rent.

Whether you/third housemate can demand the leaving tenant continue to pay you rent, perhaps for a notice period or perhaps for the year, depends on the agreement you had. Since I suspect this was oral (yes?) it will be hard to prove, though it might be possible to claim there was a fixed term agreement for the academic year.

If the leaving tenant fails to pay you two the rent he oews, you could sue via the small claims court.

But as for your contract with the landlord, that seems clear - you owe the full rent for the property irrespective of whether you receive 1/3rd of it from the lodger (or a replacement lodger) or not.

However, the LL was clearly trying to avoid creating an HMO (3+ tenants). If the property is in an area of compulsory HMO registration, he (the LL) might be willing to reduce the rent temporarily rather than have the council asking him awkward questions.

There again, he might not care, given he can say: "Look - here's the tenancy agreement with just 2 names. And look, there are only 2 people living there....".

There are other problems. Kick up a fuss about HMO compliance, its a recipe for the landlord to insist upon no lodgers and then you will be in a pickle until the end of the fixed term. Also small HMO regs are for a reason. I guess we cannot advocate a lodger where the fire risk is not assessed and all measures in place (whether licensable or not).

So we (myself included) need to be consistent. If we are going to bash the landlord with the rule book, then lets keep this house safely to 2 tenants!

SpiderLegs

[Deleted User] said:

canaldumidi said:

caitlin99 said:

andy444 said:

Why could only two people be on the contract? Presumably there are three bedrooms in the property. This doesn't make sense. Have you seen anything in writing to confirm this?

Did the leaving housemate pay rent directly to the landlord or to yourself and the other housemate?

The leaving housemate paid rent each month to the third housemate who paid directly to the landlord and the property has 3 bedrooms and we each pay our bills separately to an outside company so the landlord is aware of the fact there are 3 people residing in the property as they have been communicating with the leaving housemate. The letting agency said the property was a "family property" therefore only 2 people could be on the contract

The fact that the leaving housemate paid rent to the third housemate, not the ultimate landlord, confirms what saajan said earlier: The leaving housemate is (was) a lodger, not a tenant. His landlord was the third housemate to whom he paid rent.

Whether you/third housemate can demand the leaving tenant continue to pay you rent, perhaps for a notice period or perhaps for the year, depends on the agreement you had. Since I suspect this was oral (yes?) it will be hard to prove, though it might be possible to claim there was a fixed term agreement for the academic year.

If the leaving tenant fails to pay you two the rent he oews, you could sue via the small claims court.

But as for your contract with the landlord, that seems clear - you owe the full rent for the property irrespective of whether you receive 1/3rd of it from the lodger (or a replacement lodger) or not.

However, the LL was clearly trying to avoid creating an HMO (3+ tenants). If the property is in an area of compulsory HMO registration, he (the LL) might be willing to reduce the rent temporarily rather than have the council asking him awkward questions.

There again, he might not care, given he can say: "Look - here's the tenancy agreement with just 2 names. And look, there are only 2 people living there....".

There are other problems. Kick up a fuss about HMO compliance, its a recipe for the landlord to insist upon no lodgers and then you will be in a pickle until the end of the fixed term. Also small HMO regs are for a reason. I guess we cannot advocate a lodger where the fire risk is not assessed and all measures in place (whether licensable or not).

So we (myself included) need to be consistent. If we are going to bash the landlord with the rule book, then lets keep this house safely to 2 tenants!

Good point.

london21

That is crap that the person not paying is not on the agreement.
The landlord should deal with it, You both should not have to pay their share of rent.

Can a replacement tenant be found?

DiseasedBunny

london21 said:

That is crap that the person not paying is not on the agreement.
The landlord should deal with it, You both should not have to pay their share of rent.

Can a replacement tenant be found?

It’s not crap at all - they were subletting a room in the house, NOT tenanted via the LL, so the LL doesn’t need to “deal with it “ at all.

canaldumidi

london21 said:

That is crap that the person not paying is not on the agreement.
The landlord should deal with it, You both should not have to pay their share of rent.

Can a replacement tenant be found?

But the prson is not on the agreement.

The landlord has no contractual (or other legal) relationship with the person not paying the rent, so whilst he can choose to 'deal with it' out of the goodness of his heart, there is no 'should' about it.

Yes, both joint tenants should have to pay the full rent. There are no 'shares' in a joint tenancy.

It is not a replacement tenant that is needed - it's a replacement lodger.

dimbo61

So please look on the University accommodation website.

https://www.manchesterstudenthomes.com/Accommodation

This is the website for Most of the Universities in Manchester.
They have a Notice board for students looking for accommodation from January 2022.

I am sure your university will have something similar.

ACG

You have nothing to lose by sending a letter before action to the old flat mate.
You can then file it with small claims court. Hit and miss as to whether it would work, I would say personally that I think on the balance of probabilities the third person agreed to the terms of the contract - ie to pay rent until September. But that is just me, you would need to convince a judge of that if you took it that far.